#1: An insignificant number will pony up. My guess is less than 0.1% will pony up. Probably much less than that. Remember, most people are coming in from links on blogs and Google and other sites. They don't care enough bout you or your site or, very likely, even your town to bother signing up.

But just try finding some actual numbers on that. Nobody appears to be studying it.

But importantly, it's still an annoyance. A small point, smaller than the next point (which is NOT the same point).

#2. That paywalls discourage links is not the same as paywalls are annoying. Paywalls discourage links BECAUSE paywalls are annoying. Just as good etiquette should prevent you from linking to a huge mo-fo PDF file without warning, good manners should prevent you from linking to spam sites, garbage, or anything requiring you to sign up.

#3. Again, this is a different point. It is BECAUSE paywalls discourage links that they are anti-web. It requires the link-discouraging part plus some other premises. To complete the syllogism:
a. Any action that tends against the essence of a thing is anti-that-thing.
b. The essence of the web is links.
c. Paywalls discourage links.
d. Ergo, paywalls are anti-web.

But you did try to present an argument here: that the essence of the web is not links because there are things on the web that have nothing to do with links.

It should come as no surprise, given that the essence of the web is links, that things that have nothing to do with links are not on the web. iTunes is not on the web. You have confused the web with the Internet.

#4. This one wasn't about piracy. It was about other smaller (or bigger, I don't care) entities such as bloggers and online-only news companies etc. eating your lunch. If you don't provide the news for free, someone else surely will. And they will eat your lunch.

#5. This was the one about piracy. And people will definitely find ways around paywalls if it is easy. And it is easy.

#6. Really? Then you should sell ice to Eskimos.

#7. Yeah, but online ads don't HAVE to support the industry like print ads were. Get rid of the whole print apparatus, and you don't have to make as much revenue. You said this yourself in our interview!

#8. Right: #8 does follow from #7

#9. Like, if it ain't broke don't fix it? I think it's broke.

#10. Agree. And you have WSJ on your side. Someone help me out here.

And I agree with your closer.

#2 and #3 are the same, and there are plenty of things on the web that have nothing to do with links and that people pay for (like iTunes)

#4 is true, and there will be piracy, but the effort required to pirate a daily newspaper will probably be much more than anyone wants to invest

#5 is the same as #4

#6 is ridiculous on its face.

#7 is true, and it's a big reason why the NYT dropped its paywall. But online ads are not supporting the industry like print ads were. And it simplifies the complex nature of paid newspapers. People are more attached to paid newspapers because they're valuable to them, and that's important to advertisers. 100 people paying $10 a month is better than 10,000 people creating a few cents in ad revenue.

#8 follows from #7. And most sites with paywalls don't have ads anyway.

#9 we can't start bashing old-think until we figure out what new-think is.

#10 is a strong argument, but the companies being used as examples aren't exactly raking in the dough. To be used as an example, your decision should be seen as successful. We don't know that yet.

The idea that newspapers should be free because newspapers MUST be free is an opinion based on a desired outcome, but I don't think it has enough evidence behind it yet. It may be that the future newspaper business model doesn't have a paywall, and I believe that's probably the case in the long term, but we can't call it a done deal until we have more examples of where it's worked.