RSS Plagiarism: Is it OK For Someone to Republish Your Content?

There's an interesting discussion on several PR blogs concerning "RSS plagiarism" (not exactly plagiarism, but I can't find a better word right now:) and making money off of someone else's content.

It all started at Constantin Basturea's blog:

"Excerpts of postings from PR blogs are republished, with new permalinks, on pages featuring Google ads. Do their authors know about and approve this practice?"

Another important reference to see on this point is Steve Rubel's blog.

While the originating posts are interesting, the real meat is in the comments, so I urge you to read them all on both of the above mentioned blogs.

Now, I do understand authors who are feeling a little ripped-off, but on the other hand, I am having some problems finding a completely objective answer, especially given the technical comparison of RSS re-publishing with:

a) Search engines (search engines re-publish content, in a certain way)

b) Other online content aggregators (such as PubSub, news.google.com [not making any money with this directly], Moreover etc.)

c) Web-based RSS aggregators, such as Bloglines (because, in technical terms, there isn't much difference)

This of course only goes for re-publishing content excerpts, not full-text articles, which I naturally do not agree with, unless the author has given full permission.

So, my question to everyone reading this is:

What you all think about the following re-publishing practice:

Article title (with link to original article)
First 100-200 words of article
Article source (with link to source)

However:
a) no archives
b) no full-text articles

Also, how do you see this in comparison to:

a) Search engines (search engines re-publish content, in a certain way)

b) Other online content aggregators (such as PubSub, news.google.com, Moreover etc.)

c) Web-based RSS aggregators, such as Bloglines (because, in technical terms, there isn't much difference)

Thank you for your comments.