If .com domains weren't considered to be USA based though then a USA citizen would be the one that was being charged for breaking the law wouldn't they?
Flip it around. Suppose someone is selling online under a Somali .so domain rather than a .com; the law should operate in the same way as long as the web servers themselves aren't located in USA.
Isn't it the assumption that any transaction with a .com is essentially under the purview of USA law that is at issue?
This just emphasises the need for .com to be considered neutral territory. It's only a redirection mechanism - USA can have and apply their laws to .co.us and of course any server that is based in USA.
Flip it around. Suppose someone is selling online under a Somali .so domain rather than a .com; the law should operate in the same way as long as the web servers themselves aren't located in USA.
Isn't it the assumption that any transaction with a .com is essentially under the purview of USA law that is at issue?
This just emphasises the need for .com to be considered neutral territory. It's only a redirection mechanism - USA can have and apply their laws to .co.us and of course any server that is based in USA.