That's been a view of some Wikipedians as well. The Wikipedia Zero program is generally popular, but has still caused some worry. One reason is that Wikipedia is not supposed to be only the website, but a free-as-in-freedom encyclopedia project that can be improved, reused, remixed, adapted, etc. Sort of how OpenStreetMap is not just the Mapnik renderer on openstreetmap.org, but the map data that can be applied to many uses. But when you introduce a data-price differential between the "canonical" and third-party hosts, it strengthens the centralizing tendencies that Wikipedia=wikipedia.org or OSM=osm.org, entrenching them as the correct way to access the data, and discouraging innovation in third-party uses of the data.

Yeah, although Wikipedia Zero does have real benefits, it is a bit problematic. I have wondered if a Creative Commons Zero policy might be better.

I'm not for DRM, but if we have to have licensing baked into the web, let's use it for good.