What does "a long-term cost" mean? Whose cost? Authors'?

Context:

Why this abandonment of the only real contributionpublishers still brought to the table? I can only guess. Probably it was sheer opportunism: with the Internet slashing printing and distribution costs,publishers were able to increase short-term profits yet further by cuttingeditorial costs—and to good effect, as all four major scientific publishers(Elsevier, Springer, Wiley, and Informa) routinely post profitsexceeding a third of all revenue. In the first quarter of 2011, Wiley’sprofit of $106 million on revenue of $253 million represented an astonishing42%.

But these profits come at a long-term cost. Authors have long known that that they’re being taken for a ride; now, what had beenlow-level grumbling has broken out into vocal anger. The Cost of Knowledge sitelists three specific grievances against Elsevier: high subscription prices,“bundling” of journal sales into all-or-nothing packages, and support for SOPA,PIPA and theResearch Works Act, three regressive, punitive measures to further lockdown copyrighted works. But while these were the immediate triggers, resentmentruns much deeper. Now there are no technical barriers to access, the only waypublishers can charge for it is by making barriers: paywalls. So we have a huge and tragicdisconnect: what publishers want—barriers—is the exact opposite of what authorswant—universal access. It’s authorsvs. publishers.