Twisting Debates for Fun and Profit
The most basic rule of debate is framing. You want to frame an issue in such a way that it resonates with your target audience and brings them around to your side. One classic example was the change in rhetoric concerning the estate tax. Few people really care about a tax on large inheritances, but if you start calling it a “death tax" then people it would never have effected are suddenly screaming for it to be cut down.
Google's doing this with their Protect IP lobbying. Schmidt himself stated that they choose to “lobby based on ideas," which means funneling money to organizations and institutions that support their position . The effect of this is quite noticeable. Regardless of your beliefs on the matter, note the framing for the arguments against the act. They're all focused around keeping the Internet free, maintaining freedom of speech, and ridiculously arguing that an anti-piracy bill in the US would be used as justification by oppressive regimes to be more oppressive than they already are.
That's not an exaggeration. Eric Schmidt argued that, "this bill would send a signal to Internet restricting countries that they can make similar demands and use similar tools—only for more sinister reasons." For those unfamiliar with logical fallacies, this is called a slippery slope argument. It's along the same lines as "if we allow gay marriage, people will soon be marrying their pets." See, I just used a slippery slope from Schmidt's comment to the more emotionally charged one. It's a pointless and intellectually dishonest argument to raise a reader's emotions. He's honestly saying that fighting piracy will somehow allow tyrants to justify political censorship. I'm surprised he didn't hurt himself making that big of a logical leap. Context matters. Using a hammer to pound in a nail is different than using a hammer to kill someone, but Schmidt wants hammer prohibition nonetheless.
This is a bill about preventing people from stealing content, specifically preventing websites from setting up to profit off of piracy and other infringement. It's just an aggressive means of shutting down some leeches that have existed in a bit of a gray area in the past.
Now, Google may genuinely believe in their stated reasons. They could be spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on lobbyists out of altruism. Or they could just be throwing up a smokescreen so that they can maintain the profitable status quo. Which do you think is more likely?