Great idea. This will probably be up there with the invaluable-ness of Adblock. I have nothing against companies like the Wall Street Journal who want to charge

Great idea. This will probably be up there with the invaluable-ness of Adblock. I have nothing against companies like the Wall Street Journal who want to charge visitors to see content, but if you are going to paywall content at least be consistent and charge everyone or don't charge at all. You can't give it away to visitors from Google and expect people who weren't lucky enough to come from Google to have to pay. It is unfair and discriminatory in my opinion. This kind of reminds me of the aged old trick that people used to use for Google to get better SEO. Normal visitors would get one version of the site, the Googlebot would get an over-SEO optimised version of the site stuffed with keywords and junk (I am talking early 2000's here before Google was as advanced as it is now) to give the impression of a different site. Like I said, I think content publishers should be able to charge people for their content, but you can't have two sets of rules for the same content for the sake of a better SEO ranking and NOT expect people to exploit that loophole. What WSJ and other content publishers are doing is a little borderline dodgy. I am pretty disappointed in the comments from some people here shaming the author for creating this plugin. He isn't doing anything that we haven't already been able to do for a while now. He isn't breaking into servers and getting the content for free, he is exploiting an SEO trick WSJ and other sites are using to avoid being penalised in Google. Completely legitimate if you ask me. If WSJ wanted to truly protect their content behind a paywall, they would have presented the wall to everyone regardless of their referrer.