More reductionist arguments and false dichotomies.

This is not work funded by the public. It was created through the time and effort an author put into creating the work, presumably as his livelihood. He choose the channel of distribution, as is his right. To circumvent the chosen distribution model and circulate the work for free is not an ethical imperative. And it doesn't simply boil down to "copyright vs. free information, choose your side, go!"

That said, after putting their content (which by its nature is extremely easy to reproduce and redistribute) behind a very annoying modal, they should probably expect this sort of thing. Maybe that factored it in, and decided it was still worth it.

Not an ethical imperative for you, because, as you justify it, somebody put effort into creating this and it's his livelihood.

But that's not a justification in itself. Earning your livelihood from something does not automatically translate that it's not an ethical imperative some someone else to stomp on your business.

Notions of legality aside, it depends on how people value the way you're making your livelihood, and if they consider the counter action more ethical.

To give an extreme example, very few would say: "Hey, why did you closed this guy's meth dealing business, he made his livelihood that way" (even if said business was legal).

So, it boils down to if someone believes spreading information is more important than the creator of the information making his livelihood off of it.

Here's another example of this: is it more ethical to disclose the ingredients of a drug so that millions in Africa can have it made cheaply and be treated, or to respect the copyright of the company that created it and sells it for a huge amount?

So if someone doesn't value how you make your livelihood, he's free to stomp on you?

You do realize, writing/music/film/art and other such forms of information do not spontaneously spring into existence? This article didn't just fall into the author's lap.

Here is an alternative: you go and do all the legwork that the author did, arrange the interviews, spend days or weeks writing the piece, and then release it for free to the world. That's a perfectly viable option.

But you don't work for free, do you? No, you prefer to let other people do the work, and then you shit on them from behind your computer screen.

"Here's another example of this: is it more ethical to disclose the ingredients of a drug so that millions in Africa can have it made cheaply and be treated"

That's definitely not an example of "this", it's an example of something that's very different in a lot of ways.

Again, do you think clinically-tested drug formulas just fall out of the sky? On average, it costs between $500M - $2B to develop a new drug. Whether you choose to ignore this or not, these are huge costs that companies need to recoup in order to stay in business and develop new drugs. If the formulas were given away, the companies would have to eat the costs of development and this would not be sustainable.

That doesn't mean we should be happy with the way things are. Our medical system is a mess. We should look for new ways to reduce the costs of drug development. Perhaps we should restrict drug developers from charging exorbitant amounts far in excess of the development costs. But, in my opinion, subverting the people who put in the effort to create is not the answer.

I think the old adage needs an update.

"The internet interprets censorship as well as annoying advertising as damage and routes around it"