[jkh1ih72e8]

I'm troubled by the usage of terminology that have legal definitions that do not necessarily follow your usage. Specifically, "thief", "robbing content", "steal", etc.

Those words seem to me to imply depriving someone of something with monetary or otherwise significant value.

I am sure that copying bits is not equivalent to stealing because it does not take something away from someone.

Even ceding that point, I do not believe the publisher stating terms linked from publicly available documents binds me to a contract, ethically or legally. If it's a site that I've signed up for, and require an account to access the content on, then I am more sympathetic to the argument.

But the internet works because things are open. Publishers know this -- they know they cannot paywall their content (generally). So they want the benefits of the open community (discoverability, traffic, etc.) but they want it on their terms.

Pretending that one implicit contract (I serve content you will also request the ads I tell you to look at) is more important than another. If you want openness on the internet, you have to accept it when things don't favor your business interests.