Thanks! That's actually great to hear! What I normally end up seeing, however, are a bunch of cases where the US not only claims jurisdiction over their own citizens, but even demanding extradition of people from other countries for "helping or encouraging others" to violate the DMCA (one well-known example being Richard O'Dwyer).

Although, such cases that come to my mind were websites, which operate internationally, even if hosted entirely outside of the US. This is obviously a different situation than the seemingly commonly-cited "underage drinking" examples. For the people who build unlocks, though, like MuscleNerd, that is apropos, and those are the people who I mostly spend my time contemplating (although whether the DMCA exemptions actually help them much is another question).

(For individual users messing with their phones, of course, most of this is pointless: there is really no practical chance in hell that individual customers will be taken to court over things like this; it would be more a looming situation for people who offer this as a service at their store, which is quite common at phone repair shops.)

Regarding websites operating internationally, including tvshack.net and O'Dwyer, I think pretty much every country tries to regulate websites that server pages within their borders.

Consider "obscene" speech/media/etc. Consider hate speech. Or look up "google vividown lawsuit" (the defendants all live in the U.S., and no one cared about that fact). And let's not even get into national firewalls (e.g. China, half the Middle East, etc).

With respect to the phones... first of all, it sounds like we agree about the likely odds of individual phone users being taken to court. There's no way that anyone would be individually prosecuted for this, without there being an ulterior motive. Of course, that's a big "without"... the RIAA/MPAA seem to be utterly free of compunction, and there are so very many cases of prosecutors bullying people with obscure drug laws for various incomprehensible reasons. "3 felonies a day" and all that.

Second, yeah, if you run a business in France unlocking phones, and some of the phones you unlock happen to belong to U.S. citizens vacationing, it's not clear that the US would claim jurisdiction over you. IANAL!!! But if you run a business in NYC unlocking phones, yeah, you've got a problem.

Did I mention that I am not a lawyer, and this is not legal advice? 'Cos I'm not.

The US kinda did win: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-south-yorkshire-1654433...

The UK was allowing him to be extradited?? I don't feel so bad about UK libel law applying to US companies anymore (although it hurts everyone).

Also, O'Dwyer had his domain name seized from him by the US somehow.

The law might not cover it, but prosecutors can always try to convict you for it, and it's up to you to fight it in court if you feel that US law should not have jurisdiction over $Something in $Elsewhere.

I doubt most US courts are likely to say, "well we don't have jurisdiction over __that__".

Right; Richard O'Dwyer is actually an example of exactly that (the US didn't even win in the end: the situation dragged out and was settled and the charges were dropped; they sadly, thereby, also did not clearly lose).

As a side note, I have a huge problem with #1.

IIRC, the US is one of a very small number of countries that does this.

If income is generated without using US resources, I don't see why it is necessary for that income to be double taxed.

There are double taxation agreements in place with a very large number of countries so you never effectively have to pay double taxes, you generally have to pay the higher amount since you can deduct the tax already paid in the other country. Check what the regulations are for wherever you are.