I'll disagree with this. As someone who's spent a fair amount of time in both academia and industry, it's always shocking how little the academic side understands the true cost of things. So much in that world is paid for indirectly via the institution or someone else's grants (for instance, most university supercomputing resources are paid for by grants that the end users are never involved with). On top of that, academic labor is very cheap. Grad students and post-docs typically cost a quarter of their counterparts in industry.
The "best" path forward they have is to use grant-funded university computing resources to host the journals and grad student labor to maintain the infrastructure. This takes away the computing resources from their stated goal as research resources. You could claim that hosting research papers is a legitimate use, but given that there's no research value in developing the software for an open access journal (every publisher has something like this and PLOS does it too - there's nothing novel about it), this isn't research.
More importantly, using academic labor for this undermines the careers of those academics. Grad students and post-docs should be advancing their research careers, not developing and maintaining software infrastructure. This is abuse, plain and simple.
So, in protesting fees that basically cover the cost of managing journals and infrastructures, the academics will shift the infrastructure and labor costs to themselves. This will compromise their ability to do research (there are only so many hours in the day) and lead to an inferior product (grad students are not qualified to manage complex, production software projects).
I'll agree that we need a new model in publishing, but this isn't it.