So the interesting part of all of this is that people choose not to bypass it and pay. The reminder that they need to pay alone seems to be working.
As long as you establish that the content is worth money, a lot of people are more than happy to pay for it.
As time goes by and the unsustainability and injustice of the "all content should be free" mantra becomes widely recognized, a much clearer line between contet that is and is not worth paying for will crystallize—and with it, the social attitudes that work with or against payment for publishers, depending on the surrounding expectations.
The Times has done a solid job of positioning itself. Pity those that lack the resources an foresight to do the same.
The other day, I found out we're now using that figure of speech against the intent of the original phrase: a custom best ignored, e.g. http://afterdeadline.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/01/17/mangled-sh...
In this case, I like the modern take, because it provides us with words for a real phenomenon. I dislike some other modern takes, such as the literal "beg the question", that deprive us of precise meaning (petitio principii, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question ).
Educated people managed to save the word "irony" from Alanis Morissette, I don't think "beg the question" is lost yet.
http://searchengineland.com/wsj-pulls-back-on-what-google-se...