I don't see all that much difference, however, when bloggers are forced to post the full text of their articles instead of excerpting, even in a forum that is ostensible dedicated to blogs. Sure, one can argue that they have a choice to post at all, but their choice is essentially one of not publishing what they have to say at all, or else giving FR free content with no renumeration of any kind whatsoever to the blogger for their time and effort. The fact that most bloggers would not otherwise consent to having the full text of their posts put up on FR is shown in the fact that so many of them, unwittingly or not, excerpt.
By going ahead and posting their full posts, you are essentially stealing from them. That's still immoral, even though FR management has decided to define it as allowable.
The main difference is that large news organisations could make FR's finances extremely problematic if people kept posting their copy in full, while Joe Schmoe blogger typically cannot. Hence, since FR can get away with thieving blogger material, it does so, whereas a policy of excerpting from those who could successfully sue FR is followed.
As it states on the home page:
We are complying with all such requests. Click here for the latest list of copyright requests. Please send takedown requests to: jimrob@psnw.com
It seems to me a happy middle ground would be for the full article to be posted along with a link requesting "Click through if you liked this article" or something along those lines. This would avoid the plague of direct blog-pimping and those articles that are worthwhile to people will generate traffic to the blog.
Just my .02