The knives are out for Google Chairman Eric Schmidt. Within hours of making comments to UK media during a press conference, major US rightsholders attempted to brand Google as an arrogant, out-of-control company bent on ruining American creativity and thinking itself above US law.

The Guardian transcribed a few of Schmidt's remarks on Internet blacklists. "If there is a law that requires DNSes [Domain Name System operators] to do 'x' and it's passed by both houses of Congress and signed by the President of the United States and we disagree with it then we would still fight it," he said at one point, apparently expressing opposition to the PROTECT IP Act recently introduced in the Senate. Any such system would be used as pretext for countries like China to engage in much more repressive website blocking.

That set off entertainment execs. Take it away, MPAA's Michael O'Leary:

Is Eric Schmidt really suggesting that if Congress passes a law and President Obama signs it, Google wouldn’t follow it? As an American company respected around the world, it’s unfortunate that, at least according to its executive chairman’s comments, Google seems to think it’s above America’s laws. We’ve heard this "but the law doesn’t apply to me" argument before—but usually, it comes from content thieves, not a Fortune 500 company. Google should know better. And the notion that China would use a bi-partisan, narrowly tailored bill as a pretext for censorship is laughable, as Google knows, China does what China does.

The RIAA asked whether "the head of a multi-billion dollar leading American company [is] openly suggesting they would defy the will of Congress AND the President?" A spokesperson added, "This is baffling. As a legitimate company, Google has a responsibility to not benefit from criminal activity. In substance and spirit, this contradicts the recent testimony of Google's General Counsel that the company takes copyright theft seriously and was willing to step up to the plate in a cooperative and serious way."

And the Copyright Alliance, currently headed by a former top lawyer for Time Warner, said that Google might be trying to "scare off officials eager to defend American creativity and American jobs." Schmidt's remarks "smack of corporate imperialism, and—delivered across the Atlantic in London—are a far cry from the tone Google’s General Counsel took while testifying back home in America before the House Judiciary Committee a mere six weeks ago."

That appearance, by Google's Ken Walker, was generally quite politic, though Walker did warn of "shakedowns" from private companies wanting to force changes in Google's behavior.

"Legislation should not include a private right of action that would invite suits by 'trolls' to extort settlements from intermediaries or sites who are making good faith efforts to comply with the law," he added at the time. The PROTECT IP Act does include such a private right of action, however—and it explicitly names search engines as intermediaries required to help more in the War on Piracy.

Beyond this, Walker refrained from the kind of tough talk in which Schmidt engaged, thus giving critics little to latch onto. But Schmidt's blunter remarks were a boon to Big Content, which suddenly got a welcome chance to go after a key opponent of many PROTECT IP Act provisions.

For Google, the specific controversy over "not following the law" is ridiculous; all sorts of groups "fight laws" that they don't agree with through court action, lobbying, and protest. But the company says it's quite serious about its free speech concerns.

"Of course we abide by the law in every country we do business," a spokesperson tells Ars. "We respect what the PROTECT IP Act is trying to accomplish and we’re working closely with Congress to make sure the bill targets sites dedicated to piracy while protecting free expression and legitimate sites."