> Immediately makes me think of the vitriol here on HN for the UK trying to enforce their age verification law outside their borders

The UK and US aren't unique in this regard. The concept of piracy has been commonly treated as a topic with universal jurisdiction that expands beyond borders, going back to the time when piracy meant people on boats in international waters. I'll be honest that I don't know if or how those laws correspond to digital piracy, but countries have long considered international piracy to be something their domestic courts can go after.

Practically speaking you can always choose to ignore it if you don't have offices or assets in that country and you're okay with never traveling there for the rest of your life. You also have to avoid countries with mutual extradition agreements because many countries will offer to extradite for certain crimes with the expectation that the other country will return the favor.

The UK age verification enforcement isn't a good comparison because the UK's overreach extends even to instances where UK citizens are geoblocked. Trying to enforce your country's laws on an operation in a different country which does not even serve your country is something else. For a recent example look at the online depression forum that is being threatened by the UK even though they've geoblocked UK users - Immediately makes me think of the vitriol here on HN for the UK trying to enforce their age verification law outside their borders

▲

wahern 3 days ago | parent | next [-]

FWIW, "piracy" of copyrighted works and maritime piracy are completed unrelated legal concepts. Piracy in this context is just a rhetorical euphemism intended for moral framing, and doesn't have any meaningful legal import, notwithstanding that lawyers and judges use it like everybody else.

Relatedly, see Stallman's essay, Did You Say "Intellectual Property"? It's a Seductive Mirage: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/not-ipr.html While courts understand "piracy" is euphemistic, the phrase "IPR" has been quite successful in shaping legal theories and jurisprudence.

EDIT: The correct word here isn't euphemism, but dysphemism. TIL. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dysphemism

▲

cwillu 3 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Please don't equivocate “the concept of piracy” as if copyright infringement has any relation to kidnapping and murder.

▲

throw0101d 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

> Please don't equivocate “the concept of piracy” as if copyright infringement has any relation to kidnapping and murder.

"Piracy" as a term for copying others' creative works dates back to the 1600s, and is in a 1736 dictionary:

> The term "piracy" has been used to refer to the unauthorised copying, distribution and selling of works in copyright.[8] In 1668 publisher John Hancock wrote of "some dishonest Booksellers, called Land-Pirats, who make it their practise to steal Impressions of other mens Copies" in the work A String of Pearls: or, The Best Things Reserved till Last by Thomas Brooks.[10]

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_infringement#%22Pira...

To act shocked and offended that the term points to two different activities in 2026 is non-sensical: that ship has sailed long ago.

▲

imtringued 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

What ship?

You're saying there is a moral obligation to be incorrect.

If anything this is the type of mistake where it's never too late to make things right. 10 billion years could pass and you would still be doing people a favour by calling things by their names.

	▲	2 days ago \| parent [-]
		[deleted]

▲

cwillu 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

> To act shocked and offended that the term points to two different activities in 2026 is non-sensical: that ship has sailed long ago.

“Equivocation is a logical fallacy and rhetorical tactic that uses ambiguous language, specifically switching the meaning of a key term or phrase within an argument to make it appear valid when it is not. It involves using one word to mean two different things, often to intentionally deceive, evade, or create ambiguity.”

▲

fluffybucktsnek 3 days ago | parent | prev [-]

I think you're missing the point. Piracy, "digital" or real, has always been something that extended beyond borders. They are alleging this is probably due to governments doing said equivocation, in digital piracy case's, although I think it has more to do with the international treaties.

	▲	cwillu 3 days ago \| parent [-]
		No, I'm certain that you are: “piracy” doesn't exist as a coherent umbrella term that contains both naval piracy and copyright infringement, and the latter has certainly not “always” been enforced beyond borders.