That's sort of the thing, though: what you're describing isn't what publishers seem to be upset about or what Google is doing. In my entire life, I have yet to

That's sort of the thing, though: what you're describing isn't what publishers seem to be upset about or what Google is doing. In my entire life, I have yet to see Google put someone else's article on their site (with or without ads). Take a minute to look through Google News and show me where Google is republishing anything. What's happening (afaict) is that Google is showing the excerpt of the article surrounding the user's query as they do with every other search result. The publishers are claiming "well, Google makes money from users searching for our stuff, therefore we should get a cut". To borrow your analogy, the evolution of this bill is publishers demanding a share of Wikimedia donations because they use their articles as sources. Why should Wikipedia have revenue built on the reporting of a third party and not share it?