Most will close the tab... or wait a free digest from a third-party... but the few that will pay will help validate the business model, help journalists to earn their lives and do their job, and ultimatly keep the freedom of information.

However I can agree with that kind of behaviour against business monopolies (for example microsoft few years ago, before gDocs and OpenOffice) because they're not playing by the rules (so they deserve it).

But in this case: I can see everyday what "free newspapers" (using advertising & students copying Reuters newsfeed) did to "real newspapers": now it seems here, in France, that journalists just don't have any time to check, to think, to explain... to do their job in fact. When they have a paid job. And, at the end, it's the information freedom for everybody that has been hurt.

Well now you're just taking the argument to the opposite extreme. The company chose a business model and this add-on infringes on their rights.

This doesn't infringe on their rights. They have the right to choose not to deliver the content and to respond with a 403. If they choose to deliver the content and respond with a 200, that's their decision. At that point, you're welcome to read it however you like.

That's a decisions for the journalists to make, not for you.