Brian D. Earp on the Pratical Ethics blog of the University of Oxford posted an interesting exchange of opinions on using an unpaid-for copy of an article in the New Scientist for his research. Is it called "Twitter, paywalls and access to scholarship - are licensing agreements too restrictive ?". He felt that if somebody had let him read their print subscription there would not have been a problem - this is true. And also if somebody had given him a printed copy - it would also be OK, especially since he is using it for academic purposes. I don't think this reasoning will fly. Even if he accessed it in the library - somebody paid for a subscription. So passing around copies without paying for the article or the subscription is not right, and the use of it for academic purpose does not correct the wrong, or even mitigate it in my opinion.
He asked his friends on Twitter if someone could provide him with a pdf of the article. I don't think the fact of asking by Twitter is the issue, it is the deliberate going around the paywall with intent to copy that is illegal. He did go on to buy a subscription. He could have also lobbied the New Scientist to allow for the purchase of one article, instead of just offering subscriptions - this would fix the problem.
And of course - one could argue that I am piggybacking on his debate stream on my blog and that that is also unethical...