[Wolfenstein98k]

This is what I meant - this is a technical justification that dodges the point.

How the info is rendered isn't really important to my claim - that it is fully intended to be restricted unless you pay, and you wouldn't be able to see it without employing this trick.

The trick is expressly designed to get you around a "paywall".

This is retroactive justification for sneaking past the security guard when he's looking the other way, and helping yourself to the products without paying. It's just fancy theft.

(By contrast, not looking at mail advertising is just averting your gaze, and ad-blocking is reasonably comparable. But using a tool to get past a locked door is not analogous at all.)

[andrey_utkin]

I hope this won't fly in any sane court. If these articles are meant for customers only, then it's on the news company to use reasonable authentication and authorization of their customers.

The practice discussed here is more like the scam where they forcibly put a "good" in hands of a prospect, saying it's a gift, and then demanding a payment.