Your argument is too broad for the issue under discussion. What you say may be true, but the fact remains that (regardless of the underlying reason) these other

Your argument is too broad for the issue under discussion. What you say may be true, but the fact remains that (regardless of the underlying reason) these other countries agreed to the terms set by the US with respect to copyright, and agreed to enforce the sanctions. The argument that France appears to be making in this case is that it doesn't need other countries to agree to its demands, its courts have jurisdiction everywhere. I feel the difference is straightforward. The US has an interest in its world view and values being shared by the rest of the world and uses its economic power to get other countries to agree, at least in part, to enforcing that world view and values. They are not however (in general), asserting that decisions made in the US apply in other countries (except to our own citizens, wherein enforcement of the local US law is still at the discretion of the foreign nations while our citizens are within their borders). If the US were to assert global jurisdiction for a decision made in a local (i.e., state or federal) court it would be equally unfounded. If, however, they were to negotiate with another country and use our economic advantage to get them to agree to enforcement of a particular policy, then the country has presumably weighed the pros and cons of that decision and decided it was worth the compromise. You don't have to like it, but if you skip the middle step sovereignty as a nation becomes meaningless.