I came across a series of tweets by @indefensible today that are accusatory toward 'read later' services such as Instapaper:
Readability & Instapaper aren't like VCRs. They're equivalent to thinking you're entitled to a free DVD because the film's been on TV.— Indefensible (@indefensible) April 3, 2012
@benrhughes TiVo that changes the sets. No respect for authorial intent as expressed through design.— Indefensible (@indefensible) April 3, 2012
@zcichy it's "text" once you separate it from design and other contextual cues. Cues that are copyright.— Indefensible (@indefensible) April 3, 2012
I understand the point he's trying to make, but there's nothing that a service like Instapaper is doing that a user couldn't simply do themselves by copying/pasting an article's text into notepad for reading later. In the case of Instapaper specifically, the user has already "viewed" the design and ads that are inherent to the website they're reading before saving the text for later, so it's not like the site lost something during this process.
There is also an argument to be made for the sheer utility of these services. There are people who enjoy reading but may not have network access at all times (such as in an underground subway car), so having an article saved offline for later reading is a boon for them. The only way they would be able to do this and still see the site's original design (ads and all) would be saving a PDF copy of that site, but c'mon, who's going to do that?