In the May 21, 2005 BMJ two letters to the editor questioning the controlled access to the online BMJ.

Access controls on bmj.com: Where's the evidence for restricting access? (free online)
Frank W Arnold BMJ 2005:1211, doi:10.1136/bmj.330.7501.1211

Access controls on bmj.com: Dual models are possible (free online)
Gunther Eysenbach
BMJ 2005:1211, doi:10.1136/bmj.330.7501.1211-a

The first letter makes a very good point that BMJ should be studying the impact of restricted access to determine truely if it is affordable, profitable, and harmless. The author says that now is the perfect time (the switch between open access and controlled access) to study these questions. He says, "The fact that we may get uncomfortable answers does not justify not looking."

The second letter offers a different option for BMJ. The author uses Journal of Medical Internet Research, as an example of a journal that provides open access but offers subscribers value added content such as the ability to download whole issues as PDF files or to download topical collections of articles as electronic books.

Both letters are interesting to read and are in response to the article:
Access controls on bmj.com: Restore true open access to bmj.com (not free)
Iain Chalmers BMJ 2005 330: 904.

Finally, a third letter which promotes open acces to all scientific research (not just BMJ) declares that the publishing system is broken.

Prevailing publishing system is irrevocably broken
Gavin Yamey, Andy Gass
BMJ 2005:1211, doi:10.1136/bmj.330.7501.1211-b