But he's a British citizen in Britian. He's not subject to US laws, he's subject to British laws.

If the British government can't be bothered to protect its citizens against this kind of overreach, isn't the british government failing at the most basic purpose of a government-- to protect people's rights?

The idea that a .NET or .COM domain name subjects you to US laws is asinine beyond belief. The only degree to which this is true is domain disputes or the management of that domain name. Nothing else.

A big part of the problem here is that US judges have become errand boys for the federal government, and are inclined to let federal prosecutors get away with asinine arguments like the claim that ".COM means US presence.".

One of these things is not like the others.

While we are strongly committed to the vigorous enforcement of intellectual property rights, existing tools are not strong enough to root out the worst online pirates beyond our borders. That is why the Administration calls on all sides to work together to pass sound legislation this year that provides prosecutors and rights holders new legal tools to combat online piracy originating beyond U.S. borders while staying true to the principles outlined above in this response.

We fully support the censorship of the internet, which baffles and scares us. However, this single step may have been too drastic. Please allow us some time to find stepping stones.

In much the same way, the emergency of 9/11 is over, yet the patriot act still lives. Similarly, bureaucracies get created, but never seem to get destroyed.

Compromise slows things down, but it never seems to stop it. And compromise always goes one way. That's why we can't be satisfied with compromise.