I don’t see a problem with this. If a site steals content, everyone should agree that’s wrong. If if they tease and refer to the originator, it should be a win-win for both. I’m no more apt to see an ad on another site than on Drudge, where he does exactly this.
For example, if FR limited the content to a “headline” and a link, it’d be fine by me. I seldom read articles that are posted in threads anyhow, I’ll nearly always click through to the original source anyhow.
I do, too. But we're a distinct minority here.
I'd wager that the "click-through" rate at FR is about the same as Meltwater's customers. Didn't they provide a link in their service? That seems very, very low for companies you'd think would want to read the full context of the story they're mentioned in.
I don't find the decision particularly troubling. I think we've lived through the Golden Age of the Internet -- people actually want to make money now. I don't blame them [my personal opinions of the AP and the NYT notwithstanding].
I saw this comment on the Hacker News discussion: “A blog that excerpts a bit of a news story but adds some analysis would be transformative and thus not infringing.”
Apparently the decision says that an article can be quoted if there is commentary/discussion of the quoted text in a way as to add to the topic.
The could cause a real problem for many blogs, especially ones that have a history of posts going back years. It would be near impossible to edit hundreds or thousands of posts.