No. Some provisions apply only to websites outside US jurisdiction (whatever that is supposed to mean), but the process below applies also to LW, YouTube, Wikipedia, and friends—from here:
Sets forth an additional two-step process that allows an intellectual property right holder harmed by a U.S.-directed site dedicated to infringement, or a site promoted or used for infringement under certain circumstances, to first provide a written notification identifying the site to related payment network providers and Internet advertising services requiring such entities to forward the notification and suspend their services to such an identified site unless the site’s owner, operator, or domain name registrant, upon receiving the forwarded notification, provides a counter notification explaining that it is not dedicated to engaging in specified violations. Authorizes the right holder to then commence an action for limited injunctive relief against the owner, operator, or domain name registrant, or against the site or domain name itself if such persons are unable to be found, if: (1) such a counter notification is provided (and, if it is a foreign site, includes consent to U.S. jurisdiction to adjudicate whether the site is dedicated to such violations), or (2) a payment network provider or Internet advertising service fails to suspend its services in the absence of such a counter notification.
No. Some provisions apply only to websites outside US jurisdiction (whatever that is supposed to mean), but the process below applies also to LW, YouTube, Wikipedia, and friends—from here:
Ah, yes, that is very vague and exploitable. Especially: