I would like to get a complete list of the publishers represented by Access Copyright.
It seems to me that, from my perspective as a collection development librarian, the take-away from the fact that there are so many publishers voluntarily working with Access Copyright (over 600) is that they want to get revenue every way they can. This is only natural and I can hardly blame for-profit companies (or even non-profit society publishers and university presses who need to justify their existence to administration or membership) from trying to get an extra buck. But on the other hand, they can't blame us for wanting to both pay less and to pay in a more straightforward way. Getting paid directly for use via with often complex license agreements and then getting paid again for something that could have easily been negotiated through those original license agreements seems a little underhanded, particularly because the second payment has not typically come out of the library's budget (but certainly has an impact on it eventually). This not only is like "double dipping" but undermines the library's reputation with university administration since it suggests that we are not capable of managing all resource use and cannot be trusted with copyright issues.
My recommendation is that we merely take this into consideration. For those publishers that are affiliates of Access Copyright and therefore bring in revenue that way, such a relationship should be considered a negative when evaluating their resources. Reputation and cooperation are considered and this is just an aspect of both. It should not be an over-riding variable since there are plenty of other things to take into consideration but it must be a variable.