3 ms·

I personally believe (without any evidence) that they are ambivalent, maybe slightly opposed. However, they needed to oppose in public, otherwise, this would ha

by sebst 8y ago

I personally believe (without any evidence) that they are ambivalent, maybe slightly opposed. However, they needed to oppose in public, otherwise, this would have been a PR disaster: Publishers: "You steal our content and are unwilling to pay, so we need a law!" Google: "You're right, please do the law, because it would harm our competitors!"

oihoaihsfoiahsf 8y ago
They could easily couch the statement in such a way that they would appear blameless, if they really wanted to make a positive statement. E.g. "We recognize the critical contribution of publishing companies to our society and want to do our part to ensure the continued existence of a strong publishing industry."
- sebst 8y ago
  But then why did they not pay voluntarily when publishing companies asked for this prior to lobbying for this law?
  - oihoaihsfoiahsf 8y ago
    Same reason I don't pay extra money to the treasury even though I think my tax rates should be raised.