3 ms·

Yes. That's how it works. See [1] and [2]. Although by the time it'll be enacted it'll likely be 27 interpretations. It's not worse, just different. The EU has

by avar 8y ago

Yes. That's how it works. See [1] and [2]. Although by the time it'll be enacted it'll likely be 27 interpretations. It's not worse, just different. The EU has a history of experimenting with directives that later become core EU regulations. E.g. the GDPR existed in one form or another for the last 20 years as privacy and data processing rules the EU directed EU/EEA members to implement. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Directive_(European_Union) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Directive_(European_Union) 2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulation_(European_Union) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulation_(European_Union)

MR4D 8y ago
Thanks for the links. I do think it is worse because rather than 27 laws (one for each jurisdiction), you have 1 law with 27 interpretations, and unclear jurisdiction. For instance, What might be treated as fair use in one jurisdiction could be treated as criminal in another. In the US, while we may have different state laws, copyright and speech are managed at the Federal level, so there is only one hierarchy to navigate. This resolves the jurisdiction issue. I'm not sure the EU has that same capability in this situation. If so, then wouldn't the fair use situation quickly become harmonized?
- avar 8y ago
  The EU isn't comparable to the US in this regard, it's a glorified trading and monetary agreement, and it's not a sovereign state. The EU isn't making serious crimes like murder, arson etc. illegal, that's left to member states. It regulates market policy. Think something closer to NAFTA than the Federal government. But if you squint hard you can think of EU directives as some sort of equivalent of the Federal government obligating individual states to regulate a certain topic within a given framework, without spelling out exactly how that must be accomplished. That allows for local experimentation and flexibility. Whether you think that's a good or a bad thing I guess comes down to the philosophical argument of how close rule making should be to the governed.

by avar 8y ago

MR4D 8y ago

Thanks for the links. I do think it is worse because rather than 27 laws (one for each jurisdiction), you have 1 law with 27 interpretations, and unclear jurisdiction. For instance, What might be treated as fair use in one jurisdiction could be treated as criminal in another. In the US, while we may have different state laws, copyright and speech are managed at the Federal level, so there is only one hierarchy to navigate. This resolves the jurisdiction issue. I'm not sure the EU has that same capability in this situation. If so, then wouldn't the fair use situation quickly become harmonized?

avar 8y ago
The EU isn't comparable to the US in this regard, it's a glorified trading and monetary agreement, and it's not a sovereign state. The EU isn't making serious crimes like murder, arson etc. illegal, that's left to member states. It regulates market policy. Think something closer to NAFTA than the Federal government. But if you squint hard you can think of EU directives as some sort of equivalent of the Federal government obligating individual states to regulate a certain topic within a given framework, without spelling out exactly how that must be accomplished. That allows for local experimentation and flexibility. Whether you think that's a good or a bad thing I guess comes down to the philosophical argument of how close rule making should be to the governed.