Fact of the matter is, with the internet becoming such an important part of our lives so quickly laws haven't had a chance to catch up. For the most part, DOJ and other countries interpret the laws as "if you are effecting people/business on our soil then you are accountable to our laws". Is that right? Probably not, but it isn't 100% wrong either. America is quickly converting its livelihood such that its chief export will be intellectual property. They, rightfully, should be defending themselves in any legal way they can. Until we correct the way laws are written they'll continue to interpret them to the way they see fit.
But then we have everyone here taking things to the extreme. What if I break some obscure law in some backwater land unknown to the majority of the world? Do you think they have jurisdiction granted to them by your government? Usually these things are part of a deal of friendship between governments as US and Australia would make deals with each other as there are mutual advantages to it. Would America cut deals with North Korea to hand you over for some obscure law? I'm betting no. Don't forget, there are people behind these decisions and although they may seem asinine at times they are still logical beings capable of rational thought.
It just pains me to see the article and want to discuss it intellectually on HN but all I find is fear mongering, straw men and countless other fallacies that don't really strengthen their point. I don't care whether you agree/disagree with the ruling/courts as written, I care to have a discussion or see good points on either side of the debate, not hogwash vomited forth for emotionally charged arguments.