Welcome to my point: there's no such thing. You always have to go through national courts, and if you hold copyright in several countries, you can pretty much pick and choose the legislature that is most advantageous to your case. Take this recent one: an Icelandic company sued an Icelandic artist for slander... In UK court. The "legal" basis was that the website was hosted on a .co.uk domain, but I'm sure that the strict UK slander laws and astronomical costs of its courts had nothing to do with it. Not a copyright case, I know, but I think it's a good example of how laws and jurisdictions get fundamentally twisted when applied to the Internet. I think anyone can agree that it should've been settled in an Icelandic court.

Yeah, no. The ICJ handles disputes between nations. It has literally nothing to do with copyright. Just take a look at the kind of cases they handle: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_International_Court_of_Justice_cases

How so? Even if it's a no-profit, PBS is still a business. Even though they are operated like one in the US, political parties are not supposed to be businesses.

Since when is Bitcoin a brand lmao? I'm really struggling to see how it is comparable to McDonald's or Windows. Having a logo does not make you a corporation

Just saying what I feel it reads like, since you said you were wondering why the downvotes.

So spending money gives you the right to disrespect cultures? Interesting

Who has ever said nicotine is not addictive? Lol

Web 3.0 ≠ web3