The WSJ's paywall can be broken because they don't want to engage in cloaking and risk the wrath of Google, et al. So, if this extension is ethically wrong, is

The WSJ's paywall can be broken because they don't want to engage in cloaking and risk the wrath of Google, et al. So, if this extension is ethically wrong, is it also ethically wrong to Google the title of the article and click on the Google result, thus subverting the paywall? If the WSJ wants to really charge, that's their prerogative -- but that means no Google News or no search hits bringing people in. If they want to get more eyes on their articles, that means some people are going to get in without paying. This is just a case of a company trying to have their cake and eat it too.