There is a completely different question around the ethics of charging for something like information but as I say that is a different question.
Put a second way, would it be unethical to derive a work from a gpl source and simply use whatever licence you wanted because you did not agree with the gpl requirements?
I feel I shouldn't have to pay for this quote.
Also, you have my sypmpathy for any way that copyright culture may have warped your understanding.
I understand that explicitly as part of my participation here.
As such, I understand you are free to quote me without compensating me and doing so is ethical.
If however, this was my site and I decided to charge people for my wisdom then yes I would expect you to pay for it like everyone else
If you found a way to get it for free I would probably be unwilling and unable to stop you from stealing it and it would be unethical for you to do so.
Wanting something does not justify taking it from someone only willing to sell it.
Just as ignoring GPL requirements is unethical just because one feels that they are inconvenient (legalities aside as we are talking about ethics)
If I live next to you and I discover that I can see a member of your family when they are getting undressed, are you suggesting it would be ethical to repeated watch or even record them in the nude? What if I shared those recording with others? Do you still feel that is ethical behavior?
For me, I'm not in a position to pay and likely never will, therefore I'm not 'lost revenue'
Ethical or not, I think bypassing paywalls is a useful societal function because it help so signal to providers that their value proposition is out of whack. What's behind most paywalls is worth literally $0 to me, so the only way I would ever see it is to bypass the paywall.
I used to read the print copy of the economist, not because I couldn't access the articles for free but because it gave me a periodical with curatee articles I could sit and read (when covid started and that's all they could talk about, i cancelled my subscription, I don't need to pay for covid news).
I subscribe to spotify, but because I couldn't find the songs for free but because it's more convenient and gives them to me anywhere at a reasonable cost.
In the case of streaming services, there's an argument that they wouldn't exist if not for Napster et al and that companies would continue to try and rent seek by controlling distribution of content in a way that didn't satisfy consumer needs. The same is true for paywalls - bypassing them is an important forcing function towards a viable business model that delivers content in a way we want.
There's an implied issue here that intangible transgressions tend to do tangible harm that is so serious, it needs rectification. I think people accept this notion without worthwhile evidence.
The question of tangible harm and restitution (if any) for that harm is a question separate from ethics.
Also - it may be that your justification isn't relevant here.
The business needs to consolidate under one payment portal, and I’d pay a decent amount per year.