I’d hate to be accused of assuming anything (we all know the old saying…) but when you use language like “the people who provide the content…. ought to yield the massive benefits” it reads just as if you are implying what I first mentioned you were above.
I’m as yet unconvinced of the parallels you draw with lawyers and therapists. Lawyers don’t lawyer for lawyering’s own sake, and neither would a therapist for therapies own sake. These are patently profit professions, the real primary goal of which is to make money and a living. A comparison like this seems to imply what I second mentioned you were implying above.
The difference however between artists (writers being a subset of artists in my opinion) and scientists is much more nuanced and less distinct viewed through this capitalists lens. I think the compensation model for them both could ideally be very similar. But the point you’re making is not that we should seek to change the system and make journals and conferences cheaper while including the producers of “content” (I don’t really like that word in this context) in the financial loop, but that researchers should accept the system as is and become exploiters of it just as the journals have. I’m sure you agree that we really ought to seek change rather than accepting the garbage we currently have.