Glorious!
The state of copyright. Right, Fucking, There!
Apple is providing a service with your content. A feed reader is usually controlled by the individual reading the feeds. The programs themselves usually don't aggregate or redact in any way — or enrich it with advertisement.
And if they do they are just as bad. However the email is a gem in itself.
2) The user of a content aggregation service is paying (directly via money transfer or indirectly by seeing ads) for the content selection, not only for the provision of an automated service to retrieve feeds. One could argue that the revenue the service provider creates with content selection is based on the publisher's content, the publisher therefore should get a share of it.
A content aggregation service is like someone ripping shows and then uploading them to a public website surrounded by revenue generating ads.
The difference is pretty clear from a copyright apologists standpoint.
Personally I don't see a moral problem with either of these, since neither scenario deprives the author of their data/content. No theft has taken place. I don't believe in copyright. But I suspect you, like most people, do.
By the way, in what way does anyone consent to having google ads show up in search results showing their content? Not having a robots.txt file blocking bots?