I'm having a hard time seeing a moral or legal difference between a feed reader that aggregates content from a bunch of feeds and a content aggregation service that aggregates content from a bunch of different feeds.
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.