[jalanb]

Because "The custom and practice of the web has always been that publicly accessible pages are served without payment"

The publishers are not offering content subject to a fee (which I am not paying). They are offering content for free, and also offering ads for free.

Accepting one of their free offers, and rejecting another of their free offers is not the same thing as "just consume ... without paying"

Some news sites do offer their content subject to a fee, and if they were interesting enough then I would pay that fee. But, because none of those sites (that I have encountered) are worth it, in comparision with the freely-served pages of the net, I choose not to pay those sites, and forego their content.

But if they are not explicitly charging a fee, then we fall back to the default custom and practice, which is that they offer content for free, and ads for free, and I have the right to accept as many, or few, of those offers as I like.

[Klathmon]

>Accepting one of their free offers, and rejecting another of their free offers is not the same thing as "just consume ... without paying"

There's a bit of mental gymnastics there, but I get what you are saying. I still don't agree, but I get it.

I just feel that if you asked, 99% of content creators would not see it like that, in the same way a store isn't "offering you a product, and the chance to pay for it".

[mikestew]

I just feel that if you asked, 99% of content creators would not see it like that

<insert obligatory quote which allegedly originated with Upton Sinclair> Of course they don't see it like that. Would you happen to have a less biased source? Say, just about anyone whose salary does not rely ads?