I'm not going to argue with all the reasons you think publishers are insane. However, I will argue with the comment that "selling prestige in 2015 is a ridiculous thought."
Offering prestige in 2015 is even more valuable than it has ever been. There is more research published than there has ever been, from all around the world. The amount of research information is increasing dramatically, just like it is with all information (blog posts, videos published, etc). The value of curation increases with the increase in content, it doesn't decrease. I don't know what the future holds when it comes to how curation is going to be done and how prestige will be awarded, but I'm certain that there will be some mechanism for separating good research from bad research and bestowing prestige. That isn't decreasing in value - on the contrary, it's increasing.
Now you are conflating prestige with curation. Journals dont do curation other than an initial check, instead reviewers decide, for free. Publishers' job is basically to make sure that the herd perceives them as prestigious by coddling the big names to publish in their journals (again, for free). This is social engineering. They do not do anything that an openaccess journal can't do. (Look at eLife, open and prestigious).
We know. Those who haven't experienced it first hand have only to glance at the exorbitant profit margins. But it is not ridiculous that prestige is valuable. That is not what was claimed. What is ridiculous (although not remotely surprising -- it seems to be a frequently recurring anti-pattern in the modern economy) is that a private body which plays a morally tangential role at best in the production of this particular form of value is allowed to hold the process hostage and simultaneously price-gouge scientists in their roles as researchers, scientists in their roles as reviewers, scientists in their roles as editors, and the general public which funds them in all three stages.
Look out for new US/EU public protections of those private margins. TPP/TTIP/TISA is rumored to criminalize non-commercial infringement, even if the copyright holder does not want to prosecute, http://japanitlaw.blogspot.com/2013/01/tpps-effect-on-fanzin...
"..in practice, it is rare for the police to commence an investigation without a complaint by the rights holder.
However, this situation may change. The draft of the request of the US on Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) 15.5(g) stipulates, "its authorities may initiate legal action ex officio with respect to the offenses described in this Chapter, without the need for a formal complaint by a private party or rights holder."
You forget that the "greater community" of scientists already curates these articles for free (the reviewers). It's not the curation that's wrong, it's the closed-access.
Ah, sorry, I thought the comment I was replying to was questioning the need for someone to provide prestige at all, as opposed to being focused on the concept of selling that prestige.
In general I don't have a problem with the idea of selling curation/prestige in the form of products and services, so I don't think it's a ridiculous thought (either for 2015 or any other time in history). Let's take another example, say publishing a novel. That's something that has also never been easier to do in a wide variety of ways. But self publishing a novel isn't (typically) enough to become a successful author. You need to somehow get your book to stand out as being better than the million other novels that people publish every year. So if someone can offer you a stamp of approval that the general public trusts, that gives people a reason to believe your book is worth their time more than other books, that's a valuable service. And I have no problem with the idea that whoever can offer that service should be able to charge for it.
I think the ridiculous thing in 2015 is that academic prestige is still almost exclusively tied to the name of the journal in which it is published. That I still have a hard time wrapping my head around sometimes. So I imagine that that will eventually change, but I'm not convinced that the process of separating the good from the bad and bestowing that prestige will inevitably be free.
So if someone can offer you a stamp of approval that the general public trusts, that gives people a reason to believe your book is worth their time more than other books, that's a valuable service
But a big book publisher doesn't just do this for an author. The author gets to leverage the publishers advertising/marketing budget and connections.
Offering prestige in 2015 is even more valuable than it has ever been. There is more research published than there has ever been, from all around the world. The amount of research information is increasing dramatically, just like it is with all information (blog posts, videos published, etc). The value of curation increases with the increase in content, it doesn't decrease. I don't know what the future holds when it comes to how curation is going to be done and how prestige will be awarded, but I'm certain that there will be some mechanism for separating good research from bad research and bestowing prestige. That isn't decreasing in value - on the contrary, it's increasing.