[schlumpf]

Your retail store analogy is a red herring. A browser plugin that “maximizes the chances of bypassing paywalls” is attempting not to be party to a transaction, because if it succeeds, the user has expressly not agreed to the seller’s terms.

Instead your position appears analogous to arguing that altering a driver’s license to gain free admission to a cinema by misrepresenting oneself as entitled to senior citizen terms of entry is justifiable despite being prohibited by law in that jurisdiction.

It’s clear from this and other posts that you have articulate, principled view on many issues. So why aren’t you addressing the underlying economic issue? Publishers, like any business, need to earn revenue. If technological barriers to accessing intellectual property — and the legal protection thereof — are not valid (your claim of “frivolous overenforcement”), whose economic rights supersede the content producers? And why?

[mindslight]

> whose economic rights supersede the content producers?

The owner of the computer they're insisting implements their business logic. It's trivial to simply not send the article to someone they do not want to view it.

If the extension moves on towards sharing an account, P2P distribution, etc, you would have a point. But as it is, it's only action is to interpret the content in a different way than the publisher desires.

Let's say an abutter of a drive-in theater sets up their own seats and starts selling tickets. The intent to "see a movie for cheap" would only become relevant if coupled with some action that is actually illegal.