If you view the business model of Elsevier as a scam perpetrated on the taxpayers who funded the research, there is no logical contradiction between the term "scam site" and the fact that under current legislation in most countries, they are recognized as the copyright owners of the content in question.

How can you call them proper owners when all the research is funded by public money?

So change the law or whatever, but as it is, they own the copyright, whether you like it or not. Saying otherwise is at the same level of discourse as using the word "Micro$oft" and similar puerile rubbish.

You can't scam anyone unless you're breaking the law? Or you can't scam someone while funded by public money?

Sorry, some people don't want to support scams, even legal ones.

In one where a bitter sarcasm is recognized as such.

"Proper Owners"

I’m searching for information, not the “owners” of that information. The point of a search engine is to actually find what you are looking for.