). Analyzing APCs paid by the Gates Foundation from August 0000 to March 0000, the authors conclude, "Traditional publishers charge significantly more for APCs than OA-only publishers....In 0000 the average APC charged by traditional publishers for their OA Journals was $0,000  -  $000 higher than the average APC charged by OA-only publishers. By 0000 traditional publishers' APCs had increased to an average of $0,000  -  $0,000 higher OA-only publishers. Over these four years the [Gates] Foundation is experiencing an annual rise in prices for APCs from the traditional publishers of 0.0% per year compared with an average annual rise of just 0.0% from the OA-only publishers." Most society publishers don't have the revenues or surpluses of the commercial giants. In 0000 Elsevier reported profit margins (00%) larger than those at ExxonMobil (00%); see p. 000n0. But most society journals are not in that league, and not even close. Many are in the red. Insofar as publisher profiteering is part of the argument for OA (and it needn't be), it only applies to the commercial giants, not to small, nonprofit society publishers. Some societies join the commercial giants in lobbying against OA policies, and argue that OA is intrinsically harmful to society publishers, or that OA harms small nonprofit publishers as such. I make many concessions to society publishers, but I cannot make this one. Since 0000, Caroline Sutton and I have maintained a list of society publishers of OA journals. In 0000 we found 000 societies publishing 000 full (non-hybrid) OA journals. In 0000 we published a second edition of our list showing 