4 ms·

I don't think EU will be special in the grand scheme of things. US legislation is already pending under draft form ( https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-inte

by vladd 8y ago

I don't think EU will be special in the grand scheme of things. US legislation is already pending under draft form ( https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-internet-privacy/prison-time-hefty-fines-for-data-privacy-violations-draft-u-s-senate-bill-idUSKCN1N65U2 https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-internet-privacy/pris... ). To rephrase: if you produce an asset that can be shared with an additional significant audience at a fraction of its production cost, and all you need to do is a one-time compliance cost that probably will soon become mandatory for your primary area of distribution, then how can it be a good practice to continue banning your customer-base based on what continent are they in the world?

ucaetano 8y ago
If sharing won't generate enough revenue to pay for the cost, why would you? You can't have the cake and eat it too. You can't pass regulations and then complain people don't want to do business with you.
- vladd 8y ago
  > If sharing won't generate enough revenue to pay for the cost, why would you? Any one-time cost can be amortized in time by recurring revenues, after which you're left with pure profit. Technical work (manage your reader's cookie and policy preferences etc) is a one-time cost. Revenue from EU readers is an ongoing benefit. Hence, as long as EU income is greater than its traffic serving costs, you're bound to come ahead after some amortization time.
  - mrep 8y ago
    1. There is a time value of money so if those costs are high enough, the meager returns can be less than they can get elsewhere and thus they shouldn't do it. 2. There are other ongoing costs to comply with gdpr outside of the server fees such as manpower to comply with gdpr requests, lawyer fees if they get sued and obviously fines if they lose any lawsuit related to it.
  - ucaetano 8y ago
    The fact that the LA Times is not doing is enough evidence that it isn't financially viable for them.

by vladd 8y ago

ucaetano 8y ago

If sharing won't generate enough revenue to pay for the cost, why would you? You can't have the cake and eat it too. You can't pass regulations and then complain people don't want to do business with you.

vladd 8y ago
> If sharing won't generate enough revenue to pay for the cost, why would you? Any one-time cost can be amortized in time by recurring revenues, after which you're left with pure profit. Technical work (manage your reader's cookie and policy preferences etc) is a one-time cost. Revenue from EU readers is an ongoing benefit. Hence, as long as EU income is greater than its traffic serving costs, you're bound to come ahead after some amortization time.
- mrep 8y ago
  1. There is a time value of money so if those costs are high enough, the meager returns can be less than they can get elsewhere and thus they shouldn't do it. 2. There are other ongoing costs to comply with gdpr outside of the server fees such as manpower to comply with gdpr requests, lawyer fees if they get sued and obviously fines if they lose any lawsuit related to it.
- ucaetano 8y ago
  The fact that the LA Times is not doing is enough evidence that it isn't financially viable for them.