Hacker News Reader

Revenue for the service obviously. If everyone acted like the people in question and nobody paid for the service it could not sustain itself, so paying customers effectively subsidize free riders.

They never had it, thus does not meet the definition of theft.

Well, the publisher paid people for their writing (or content), and then hosts it for revenue.

The publisher didn't pay them in order to give it away for free.

If you start using digital lockpicks to pick their digital lock, and consume their content without paying, they have lost the revenue haven't they?

(Cue "they're not entitled to revenue for intangible goods", and other libertarian arguments that are internally cohesive but not accepted by the public)

Internal matters are just that, internal matters. You cannot enforce information transfer controls (without prior agreement with that person) because you allegedly paid someone to produce data, and want to make money off of it.

resources to transmit data over a network.

I don’t think this extension receives additional data that the publisher did not willingly provide. Besides I am pretty sure many others would be willing to offer said resources for free (if it wasn't for “good” guys with assault rifles showing up to enforce information and knowledge transfer controlls)