Pulse just acknowledged in the comments they are actively scraping RSS feeds from publicly available content (in addition to partnerships with some publications) - which is usually a violation of copyright law.
If Pulse is in fact violating copyright law (not saying they are), how is it a violation when it's behind a password protected user account, but not when it's behind an app that requires authentication to access?
WSJ content for example was behind a pay wall. But the difference is really that before they were an "app" running as a browser. Now they are a Website republishing the content.
The user experience may be the same, but the difference is equivalent to the difference between cutting a picture out of a magazine an pasting it on your wall, and taking a picture out of a magazine, scanning, it and publishing it to your website.
