The ethics of paywall jumping

Most of you probably heard that the New York Times announced yesterday it would soon start charging for access to their website. This wasn't a surprise. We've known since January of last year that a paywall of some sort was on its way. But the prices have surprised a lot of people (the cheapest plan is $15 per month) and sparked a discussion about "paywall jumping."

This is basically the act of circumventing the Times' paywall by accessing articles through search engines, Twitter, etc. Because you can get to NYT content in this way without a subscription, the possibility has been raised that it will dissuade people from signing up. A Times rep told the Wall Street Journal they're expecting only "a very significant minority, a small, small number of people" to become paywall jumpers. A lot of others disagree.

I know I probably won't be able to afford a web subscription to the New York Times, even though I read it every day. But would it be tantamount to stealing for me to actively seek out NYT content via outside (non-paywalled) sources? What do you think?