[waddlesworth]

I don't necessarily agree with the parent, but the current system supports publishers, journals and rights-holders far more than it does artists and researchers.

Until we have a popular means of paying artists directly, or self-publishing, this will continue to be the case.

[wpietri]

Sure. Some of that's illegitimate, but some of it definitely isn't. Publishers do valuable things too. For example, writer John Scalzi here answers the question of why he doesn't self-publish:

https://whatever.scalzi.com/2015/05/25/about-that-deal/

(See under "Why are you sticking with traditional publishing!")

And I'll note that in addition to the obvious functions of editing, marketing, talent development, and vendor management, they also provide capital. One could say correctly that it's perfectly possible for software to all be sold by single individuals. But most software is produced by companies, quite a lot of whom take up-front investment.

[TimJYoung]

We do have ways of self-publishing or paying creators directly: the internet. Anyone can pop up a web site and start selling their wares with minimal fuss. It costs a couple of thousand bucks to set up an internet-based company in the US, with the majority of the money going to incorporation. Payment processing services, payroll services, tax/accounting services, hosting services, etc. are all super-cheap and don't require a lot of work.

Sometimes I have to stop myself from constantly grumbling "kids these days...", but wow, I'm seeing a lot of young people erecting mental barriers to acting on their dreams and aspirations. It's never been easier to make money in this country, but you have to a) put in the hours, b) stop giving away your stuff for free, and c) manage your expectations - nobody is saying that you're going to win the lottery by becoming the next Google or FB.