5 ms·

> Second it's hard not to notice that much of what the EU does is try to hurt US tech companies These are European laws designed to regulate industry inside th

> Second it's hard not to notice that much of what the EU does is try to hurt US tech companies These are European laws designed to regulate industry inside the EU. If an American company decides to do business in the EU they're subject to the same rules as any business already operating inside the EU. So claiming this is designed to hurt US tech companies is quite a reach. If you feel American tech companies are being hit harder than their EU counterparts then perhaps that is because those American tech companies were attempting to game the system to begin with - in which case the EU is right to regulate their European operations. It's really no different to how goods manufactured outside of the US still have to adhere to American safety regulations if they want to get sold inside the US.

sqdbps 8y ago
That's a dishonest argument, yeah these laws theoretically apply to everyone but they were designed specifically for and disportionately affect US companies. As for the "gaming the system" argument that doesn't comport with really either since these laws were introduced after the fact.
- laumars 8y ago
  > That's a dishonest argument. Honestly, I felt the same about your argument. What you're suggesting is that American companies should not abide the the same laws as European companies when doing business in Europe. Which is an awfully biased position to take. Have you actually stopped to look at why some US companies have been hit? The anti-trust cases, for example, highlighted some highly unethical behaviour. Also have you actually spent any time researching into whether European companies come under the same scrutiny or are you just assuming it doesn't happen because you only read about American business over in America? Spoiler alert, the EU does come down on European businesses equally hard. I get that the American philosophy to business is often about deregulation. But that's not how Europe works and if American companies want to do business in the EU then it's only fair that they have to follow the same rules as European business do. Like I said before, if you want to sell imported goods in America then those goods still have to meet American safety standards. We all agree that is acceptable. And equally I'm sure you agree that European companies who do business in America should abide by American law. So why should it be any different with EU regulations? [edit] I'm not going to defend the copyright reform though. That proposal is just dumb. But in terms of your point, I can see it hurting EU businesses as well as American ones.
- Scarblac 8y ago
  They disproportionally affect US companies because US companies happen to make up the majority of this market of news-aggregators that have no own content but make money off of the content of media companies.
- irrenhaus 8y ago
  No, they're not designed specifically for US companies. They're specifically designed to target the major players in the market. In some cases these companies have a de-facto monopoly which makes them basically the only ones the laws are targeting - because they are the only relevant players. The fact that these companies mostly are US companies is of less than zero relevance here. You can't export de-facto monopolies to other countries and then complain that regulations in other countries are only hitting the monopoly you're exporting.
zaroth 8y ago
> These are European laws designed to regulate industry inside the EU. More like regulating industry which are accessible within the EU, which may not even be EU based. So these laws have broader reach, similar to how the US DMCA had broader effective reach. > If an American company decides to do business in the EU they're subject to the same rules as any business already operating inside the EU. If an internet service decides not to ban access to EU users, they become subject to these laws. It doesn’t matter whether the company is based in the EU or not for the law to apply, but rather if they are serving EU users. This is similar to laws passed by states like NY and CA in the US which require things like privacy policies to have certain disclosures, the effect is that regardless of the law coming from a specific jurisdiction, due to the nature of the Internet and not wanting to turn customers away through geographical blocking, companies far and wide get roped into following these local regs. > So claiming this is designed to hurt US tech companies is quite a reach. If you feel American tech companies are being hit harder than their EU counterparts then perhaps that is because those American tech companies were attempting to game the system to begin with. So here’s where I think you’ve made an unjustified leap. It’s very possible to pass an unfair or hairbrained law which applies to everyone operating in or serving a jurisdiction (EU) and even where the terms of the law apply evenly to all companies, but where the practical impact of the law is targeted to impact specific players in the market. It’s clearly obvious (just look at the actual discussion of the politicians as they work to enact these laws) that they are motivated by an intense dislike of US tech company dominance in the EU. But the amusing thing is the laws so far have just managed to further establish US tech dominance. So we see an ongoing escalation where nationalistic bias against specific companies drives increasingly poor public policy. > It's really no different to how goods manufactured outside of the US still have to adhere to American safety regulations if they want to get sold inside the US. It’s similar in the sense that they are both domestic policies which have international reach. For example, we’ve seen product safety around lead content in children’s toys due to Chinese imports with lead. The key difference is that the policy is made completely ignorant of specific companies deemed “responsible” but follow from a pure general principle “lead should never be in children’s toys.” In this case we have obviously terrible policy (“you should have to pay to link to someone on the Internet”) because the underlying principle driving the new regulation is in fact more like “how do we save old media in the face of big bad Google”?

sqdbps 8y ago

That's a dishonest argument, yeah these laws theoretically apply to everyone but they were designed specifically for and disportionately affect US companies. As for the "gaming the system" argument that doesn't comport with really either since these laws were introduced after the fact.

laumars 8y ago
> That's a dishonest argument. Honestly, I felt the same about your argument. What you're suggesting is that American companies should not abide the the same laws as European companies when doing business in Europe. Which is an awfully biased position to take. Have you actually stopped to look at why some US companies have been hit? The anti-trust cases, for example, highlighted some highly unethical behaviour. Also have you actually spent any time researching into whether European companies come under the same scrutiny or are you just assuming it doesn't happen because you only read about American business over in America? Spoiler alert, the EU does come down on European businesses equally hard. I get that the American philosophy to business is often about deregulation. But that's not how Europe works and if American companies want to do business in the EU then it's only fair that they have to follow the same rules as European business do. Like I said before, if you want to sell imported goods in America then those goods still have to meet American safety standards. We all agree that is acceptable. And equally I'm sure you agree that European companies who do business in America should abide by American law. So why should it be any different with EU regulations? [edit] I'm not going to defend the copyright reform though. That proposal is just dumb. But in terms of your point, I can see it hurting EU businesses as well as American ones.
Scarblac 8y ago
They disproportionally affect US companies because US companies happen to make up the majority of this market of news-aggregators that have no own content but make money off of the content of media companies.
irrenhaus 8y ago
No, they're not designed specifically for US companies. They're specifically designed to target the major players in the market. In some cases these companies have a de-facto monopoly which makes them basically the only ones the laws are targeting - because they are the only relevant players. The fact that these companies mostly are US companies is of less than zero relevance here. You can't export de-facto monopolies to other countries and then complain that regulations in other countries are only hitting the monopoly you're exporting.

zaroth 8y ago

> These are European laws designed to regulate industry inside the EU. More like regulating industry which are accessible within the EU, which may not even be EU based. So these laws have broader reach, similar to how the US DMCA had broader effective reach. > If an American company decides to do business in the EU they're subject to the same rules as any business already operating inside the EU. If an internet service decides not to ban access to EU users, they become subject to these laws. It doesn’t matter whether the company is based in the EU or not for the law to apply, but rather if they are serving EU users. This is similar to laws passed by states like NY and CA in the US which require things like privacy policies to have certain disclosures, the effect is that regardless of the law coming from a specific jurisdiction, due to the nature of the Internet and not wanting to turn customers away through geographical blocking, companies far and wide get roped into following these local regs. > So claiming this is designed to hurt US tech companies is quite a reach. If you feel American tech companies are being hit harder than their EU counterparts then perhaps that is because those American tech companies were attempting to game the system to begin with. So here’s where I think you’ve made an unjustified leap. It’s very possible to pass an unfair or hairbrained law which applies to everyone operating in or serving a jurisdiction (EU) and even where the terms of the law apply evenly to all companies, but where the practical impact of the law is targeted to impact specific players in the market. It’s clearly obvious (just look at the actual discussion of the politicians as they work to enact these laws) that they are motivated by an intense dislike of US tech company dominance in the EU. But the amusing thing is the laws so far have just managed to further establish US tech dominance. So we see an ongoing escalation where nationalistic bias against specific companies drives increasingly poor public policy. > It's really no different to how goods manufactured outside of the US still have to adhere to American safety regulations if they want to get sold inside the US. It’s similar in the sense that they are both domestic policies which have international reach. For example, we’ve seen product safety around lead content in children’s toys due to Chinese imports with lead. The key difference is that the policy is made completely ignorant of specific companies deemed “responsible” but follow from a pure general principle “lead should never be in children’s toys.” In this case we have obviously terrible policy (“you should have to pay to link to someone on the Internet”) because the underlying principle driving the new regulation is in fact more like “how do we save old media in the face of big bad Google”?