It's not about hurting the business. It's not just "wishes". That's the legal framework, also laid out in their terms of service.
You're breaking the contract that the content "value" is provided in exchange for something, either attention on ads or cash, depending on the publisher. This is what makes it wrong.
The real issue is that the internet does not allow for effective policing and capture of contract offenders. It's wrongs being committed with no consequence, but this does not justify it being done.
But if I'm on their site reading their content and linking to their other content and looking at their ads, how am I not fulfilling that "contract"? Attention is what they wanted, attention is what they got.
That contract I never was given a chance to read, or sign, or agree to in any way, mind. Given that, i'm not sure how you can say refusing to do something I never agreed to do in the first place is morally wrong.
This is my whole point - the distinction is entirely arbitrary because WSJ obviously values the attention more than they value the money, else we would be having this conversation right now.
You're breaking the contract that the content "value" is provided in exchange for something, either attention on ads or cash, depending on the publisher. This is what makes it wrong.
The real issue is that the internet does not allow for effective policing and capture of contract offenders. It's wrongs being committed with no consequence, but this does not justify it being done.