This is a great (=true) answer, but doesn't it basically argue that Copyright is a false premise? The evidence seems to be that (1) 90% of the money does not go to the author; and (2) In spite of (1) it still makes sense to do what it takes to publish. Logically, one infers that a copyright monopoly is fairly replaced by something with 10% of the social cost, provided that "springboard to getting recognition and open doors" effect is neutral. Is this lattr assumption only possible through copyright? What if there was something like an Award or &tc stamped your resume?