Google Trying to Alter Its US-Rooted Image With EU

[engine]

Many US-based companies misunderstand Europe's attitude to business in the EU, and Google's head of European Business has admitted it's trying to change.

“We want to be pragmatic and get to a point where we can continue to invest in building great products for everyone,” he said.

Brittin acknowledged that Google had failed to explain its business and vision to policymakers in Brussels and elsewhere in Europe, and said that the company was trying to adjust its American-rooted Silicon Valley image.Google Trying to Alter Its US-Rooted Image With EU [politico.eu]

[fathom]

Ya - I really don't see the evil in their models - after a long debate [webmasterworld.com...] that appears to be the general outcome here (or everyone simply lose interest in making rebuttals)

[jmccormac]

Google's "Don't be evil" is considered a nice marketing slogan that is not supported by the reality. It therefore comes as a bit of a surprise to Google fans, shills and trolls, who may also be shareholders, that others,especially in Europe, don't drink the Koolaid. The apps thing is intended to try casting Apple in the same light as Google. The EU may well nail Google and it has been a long time coming.

Regards...jmcc

[fathom]

Contrary to popular opinion in EU - Koolaid was also an American invention. Odd to mention it to denote an EU claim.

Nailing Google will require European laws being violated which requires European evidence being shown not American evidence that couldn't break American Fair Use Laws. Clearly noting that NOT drinking Koolaid means you can't use that as evidence.

[jmccormac]

The phrase "drinking the Koolaid" is a reference to the Jonestown Massacre. It basically means that the Google fans would do anything that Google asked and most seem to think that Google cannot be evil despite evidence to the contrary. The single point that most of these Google fans don't get is that in the EU, EU laws and regulations apply.

Regards...jmcc

[fathom]

What evidence?

So an American historical event that produced an American figure of speech involving an American flavored drink mix found its way into a discussion about an American company exercising its American Fair Use Rights involving other American companies and their American databases hosted in American jurisdictions... are there actually any EU claims or does that actually matter in the EU?

I realize you're not the EC but surely you can demonstrate a single EU based claim... in the 3 threads I have participated in only US-base data has been demonstrated. If that is all there is... wouldn't this be DOA?

[jmccormac]

Google has substantial EU business activities and those Google owned companies trade within the EU. It also has data centre and marketing operations within the EU. They are subject to EU laws and regulations. Using EU data and data on EU citizens does seem to be a concern. Thinking that this is only a data and SEO issue is falling into the same trap that most of the commentary from US based SEO blogs and industry websites are fell into head first. The claims will be published in due course by the EC. I explained on another thread about the issue of database rights which exists in EU legislation but not, as far as I know, in US legislation. And in the EU, with EU based businesses, EU regulations apply.

Regards...jmcc

[fathom]

It doesn't matter where the business offices are it only matters where the data is scraped from, that is where the crime occurred.

If Google scraped BP Oil's website hosted in the UK that database is in the EU jurisdiction that would indeed be a problem for Google but TripAdvisor's data is hosted in the US so that isn't of any use to the EC case.

So please show me a single archive that was scraped in the EU?

Additionally, if Google's EU datacenter scraped EU hosted databases that would indeed be a problem but if the host service is not is an EU jurisdiction while the EU resident company is that is bound by EU oriented laws.

[edited by: fathom at 11:49 am (utc) on Jun 7, 2015]

[jmccormac]

Like EG and the rest, you don't seem to understand that this is an economic and regulatory issue. Google has companies, data centres and operations within the EU. Therefore EU legislation applies to these operations. Talk to the EC. They are the ones with the evidence.

Regards...jmcc

[fathom]

I understand the issues.

Database rights exist in US Law ... [copyright.gov...] & [copyright.gov...] and in most non-EU countries. If the database is hosted in Canada, Canadian Law governs that. So the only data Google can be tied to a crime MUST BE IN EU COUNTRIES!

DO WE AGREE! ... if the crime occurred elsewhere the laws there would govern that.

... and while I am sure the EC thought about this... clearly none of you can show me a single example of an EU claim so what evidence can your position be based on?

A hypothetical case?

[jmccormac]

You seem to be talking about a completely different thing when it comes to a "claim". The EC published its statement of claims on the previous action and Google had ten weeks to reply to these claims. The evidence underlying those claims, gathered as part of its investigations, would have been forwarded to Google. It is up to the EU to show Google and whatever court may rule on the issue the evidence rather than you.

The EU legislation on database rights is legislation. The US coverage is, from reading those reports, just based on a number of judicial decisions rather than well defined legislation.

Here's a rather important line from the 1997 report you cited above: "The report does not make recommendations on either the advisability or the form of any database protection legislation."

Regards...jmcc

[fathom]

You seem to be talking about a completely different thing when it comes to a "claim". The EC published its statement of claims on the previous action and Google had ten weeks to reply to these claims. The evidence underlying those claims, gather as part of its investigations, would have been forwarded to Google. It is up to the EU to show Google and whatever court may rule on the issue the evidence rather than you.

I understand they investigated but since you sort of suggested they never shared their findings with you ... what evidence are you using to suggest any position?

I have no evidence suggesting Google didn't commit an EU crime but as I understand you have no evidence they did. Which has been my point all along.

The EU legislation on database rights is legislation. The US coverage is, from reading those reports, just based on a number of judicial decisions rather than well defined legislation.

Here's a rather important line from the 1997 report you cited above: "The report does not make recommendations on either the advisability or the form of any database protection legislation."

Regards...jmcc

US Law is overwhelming based on case law... I concede that. But just because there is EU legislation does not mean an EU crime occurred.

Guess we will all know soon enough.

[jmccormac]

US Law is overwhelming based on case law... I concede that. But just because there is EU legislation does not mean an EU crime occurred.

This a problem that occurs when people start throwing around legal terms without understanding them. With EU legislation, there are clear legal definitions. This makes it less of an argument based on case law. However the claims, and their supporting evidence, have not been published yet and it is not known if the EU's database legislation will be a part of it.

Read this: [en.wikipedia.org...]

This is the text of the actual directive: [eur-lex.europa.eu...]

It is a very strong piece of legislation if the EC wants to apply it.

Regards...jmcc

[fathom]

Never disputed that... but not sure why when members published their versions of suggested EU evidence you simply ignored those as if suggesting you concur when there is no clear evidence that was ever published.

Which is why I continued to post. I'm not "FOR" Google nor against EC just find this whole thing fascinating.

I'm not a lawyer so the language of the legislation isn't something I will read (sorry) but to use an analogy: it might indeed be first degree murder strength legislation but if the murder never happened in the EU even if all the players do business in the EU I really can't see the connection. If the Data is stored in Newark and Google scraped it from Newark I don't see how Brussels has any jurisdictional authority.

The big grey area I see isn't really about data rights but damage caused to competing solutions not being freely promoted at the top of Google. That is a very slippery slope to dance on... As I want to freely promote on all EU domains that do business in EU.

Peter Thiel makes a case for each opposing view [youtube.com...]

[jmccormac]

Google has data centres in the EU, doesn't it?

Regards...jmcc

[fathom]

Well sure, but again if an EU located datacenter committed a crime in the US that is governed by US Law not EU law.

If I was on a slippery slope I would mind data from a friendly territory... wouldn't you? Course I'm not as dumb as Google nor are you. Right?

Google answering crimes committed in the US have already been settled.

I would think Google's attorneys would note double jeopardy laws.

[jmccormac]

Probably wouldn't matter. The data from the alleged offence is being stored in an EU data centre and it is being monetised by Google's EU companies. That does bring up some more nasty copyright legislation about the removal or interference with rights management information.

Regards...jmcc

[fathom]

Good point!

And since FTC never trialed a case there is no double jeopardy.

[RedBar]

Well sure, but again if an EU located datacenter committed a crime in the US that is governed by US Law not EU law.

Why?

By that logic a US data centre committing a crime in the EU is then governed by EU law, or am I missing something? The US is not the world police and can't have it both ways.

Isn't this similar to where data centres are located and their tax implications?

I don't know enough so don't shoot me down!

[fathom]

What ever jurisdiction the crime is committed those are the laws that govern the case.

[Dave_Hybrid]

So a US data center scrapes a US website and that is a US crime because it all happened in the US....

What happens when I use a UK computer, search trip advisor or yelp etc and I see that scraped knowledge graph data in the SERPS.

What country did that happen in?

[jmccormac]

@Dave_Hybrid There's some very nasty legislation about importing data which has had its rights management data stripped from it. Much of it originated with the satellite TV piracy issue but in some legislation it mentions databases as being covered. Google is, not to put too fine a point on it, screwed if the EC decides to use exploit this legislation. But it is all about the money.

Regards...jmcc

[fathom]

That is a GREAT point Dave_Hybrid which might suggest Google still has a leg to stand on. I never read this very nasty legislation but not to put too fine of a point on it... being screwed due to some legislative loophole isn't unheard of, but there still is a winnable defense.

[jmccormac]

Well I guess you just don't read much legislation, especially the nasty stuff. :)
[eur-lex.europa.eu...]

Pay close attention to the rights management information removal clauses.

Regards...jmcc

[fathom]

I'll pay attention to the IF part.

None of nasty stuff matters much IF EC does what FTC did.

Course then it'll be Google bought the EC, or rather their associate governments.

[jmccormac]

Perhaps you should read some reports on this from reliable sources rather from the Cargo Cult SEO bloggers who haven't a clue about what's going on with these actions. This isn't about the FTC. The FTC's activity does not have any bearing on the subject. This isn't about US legislation or your interpretation thereof. It is an EU issue. Waffling about "crimes" is highly inaccurate and is quite misleading.

Regards...jmcc

[jmccormac]

@RedBar

Isn't this similar to where data centres are located and their tax implications?

And the regulatory frameworks that apply in those jurisdictions. The tax avoidance schemes used by Google in the EU maybe providing a lot of the motivation behind these actions. Google has many companies within the EU and for them, EU and national laws apply. This is something that many of the webmasters, SEO heads and assorted bloggers commenting on this matter fail to understand as they only think of Google as a single, US based, entity.

Regards...jmcc

[fathom]

Perhaps you should read some reports on this from reliable sources

I would rather wait to see what occurs in the trial, since Google has avoided taxes in is clear this will go to court.

Waffling about "crimes" is highly inaccurate and is quite misleading.

Tax Evasion, Tax Fraud, or Tax Avoidance Schemes: the illegal nonpayment or underpayment of tax.

Crime: an action or omission that constitutes an offense that may be prosecuted by the state and is punishable by law.

Waffling... with your very nasty legislation doesn't seem to be so far-fetched... course we both agree nothing has been proven.

[jmccormac]

You really don't understand the terms you are trying to use. Tax avoidance is legal. Tax evasion is illegal. As with copyright legislation, you haven't a clue about it. Cutting and pasting definitions scraped by and from Google is not the same as knowledge of a subject. So please stop trying to convince people you know about these issues when it is painfully obvious that you do not.

Regards...jmcc

[RedBar]

Perhaps you should read some reports on this from reliable sources

Have you any links for these? I'm trying to wrap my head around all of this however it's not working and I'd really like to try and understand it much better.