> Just because something is on the internet doesn't give you the holly right of getting it for free.

Correct. Others have the holy right to charge, and I have the holy right to try getting around it.

Yeah. That's the point. I won't go into the subject of discussing if that is legal or not, but for sure it's not ethical.

That said, you're free to try to get around easy "protections", Mozilla is free to take down your methods for doing that.

You could make moral arguments for and against the companies seeking these protections and even Mozilla itself.

Ultimately businesses will always ruthlessly try to make more money, and software will ruthlessly seek a more efficient user experience.

Often these objective clash. Spotify is the obvious example that seemed to offer a solution in the music space. But we have yet to discover such a solution in online publishing.

Bypassing paywalls is a "more efficient user experience"? Wow... that's a whole new level...

It pretty easily meets the definition of efficiency- it allows users to do more, in less time, and utilizing less resources.

How about paying? That will let you do more, in less time, and won't require an extra browser plugin, which means that it will use even less resources than using a plugin to bypass the paywall.

Money = resources

> Just because something is on the internet doesn't give you the holly right of getting it for free.

Why not?

The same reason why I can't just get your lawnmower even if it's visible, in your backyard.

A better comparison is dropping my lawnmower off in your backyard, teasing you with access, and then complaining when you touch it.

You cannot reasonably expect to protect or restrict content with a flawed understanding of the medium in which that content is conveyed.

If you don’t want me access it don’t put it on the web.

Your lawnmower (your website) is in your backyard (your servers). If I go to your backyard (your servers) and I get/use your lawnmower (your website), I'm 1) trespassing privet property (the paywall) and 2) using something that I'm not allowed to use (your lawnmower, your website that requires me to pay for the content).

No matter how easy is it for me to go into your backyard (bypass your paywall), it's still an offense.

If I can download your content by simply changing my user-agent identifier you don't have any security. In this context the backyard is the local computer and web browser. The lawnmower is the content in question. It is deposited and there. If you don't want the user to access your content then don't drop it into their backyard. The user isn't trespassing by accessing content left in their property.

More simple, if you don't want the user to have it then don't give it to them.

In my opinion, the problem is because content owners/producers want a double standard. They want people to pay for access but they also want there content indexed so people can find it. So if this tool makes it so that the site treats me as an indexer than so what?

Have you ever been in a conversation where someone talks about something and you said “hey I read this cool article on that, let me send it to you.” If so, guess what - you were the search engine for that conversation. Should you then have access to view the non-paywalled content?

So yeah, I have no issue with this add on. If they didn’t want the double standard - to allow free access for some and not others - it is easily possible and in their full control to prevent add ons like these (think of any admin site or service for which you have to login before seeing/do anything.)

Content producers have a choice and they’re choosing to be bullies. I have no moral or ethical qualms when it comes to dealing with bullies or double standards.

Just my two cents.