You're willing to wage an awful lot on the proposition that there is another business model, even though both you as well as thousands of now-bancrupt publishers have failed to find it.

Also: your own business model of "living" is just held up by the completely artificial rule of others not taking everything you own. Just because "it's on the internet" doesn't make "might is right" a true proposition.

> You're willing to wage an awful lot on the proposition that there is another business model,

No, for a business model not to work doesn't mean that there has to be another business model that will allow you to run exactly the same business. If I need to fish with dynamite to make fishing in a particular area profitable, and dynamite becomes illegal, it's no one's responsibility to come up with another way I can fish.

I dont have a business model based on living as a general rule, or elsewise some people owe me some money :)

And no, that's not a fair analogy, its me saying that if you tell me something, I am not beholden on your instructions to forget it.

You simply have to use something as simple as a lock and key and I will be forever stopped from knowing the thing (in reality).

All news orgs have this option, they simply want the cake and eat it too of working with popular search engines and also charge users for information that they effectively already have.

If you want to operate a private service go for it, nobody is going to complain about it, and any unauthorized access will be met with scorn (at the least.)

edit: also I am not just willing to wage failed business models all day - clinging to things that dont work isnt a way towards success.