It would make an interesting legal challenge to enforcement of the 16th amendment, to point out that the court protects the fourth and fifth amendments to a far greater extent than they protect the sixteenth.
So if the fourth and fifth don't apply outside the country...
Makes me wonder about the legality of the old World War I barrage balloons.
Hang a few balloons over your property on lightweight but strong cords hooked to heavier chains. Any propeller-driven aircraft (helicopter or drone) that flies into one gets chains wrapped around its rotors.
Alternately, attach a steel or titanium bar to a small, cheap toy drone and fly it into the propeller of a larger, more expensive drone. The toy gets shredded, the larger drone's propeller shatters on the metal bar, and both crash.
Then obviously all you need to do to avoid kidnapping charges is take your victim outside of the country.
The government is fond of that quote about the Constitution not being a suicide pact, but they tend not to think of the corollary to it -- if the highest law of the land is not a suicide pact, then lesser laws such as mere statutes cannot be either.
This sort of crap proves something I've been saying for a while now -- what good do lawsuits do if, even if you win, you get paid off with your own money and the money of your fellow citizens, with the people you sued never paying a penny?
Any violation of rights you can win a lawsuit under 42 USC 1983 for, is also a criminal act under 18 USC 242. Since most such violations of rights include acts of violence one way or another, perhaps the time has come to apply the laws the police like to hide behind, the ones that don't apply to just those with badges?
Self-defense against a violent criminal is not illegal, even if that criminal is a federal agent. It cannot be illegal, otherwise it would be impossible for the government itself to arrest or prosecute a government agent/employee -- don't forget, handcuffing someone unlawfully is assault.
Granted, one individual against an army is a bad idea generally, but if the only way we can get the justice our Constitution guarantees us is through vigilance committees or militias -- well, if the government is already in a state of rebellion against its own Constitution, it's not treason to put down the rebellion.
Re: Difficult to disagree, yet it's WRONG! Not transformative: makes nothing NEW, only index-ive and search-ive. But does set out firm limits.
Intellectual property has always been about legal grifting. The Constitution allows a limited time monopoly to content creators in order to encourage them to create for the public benefit, not because forbidding other storytellers from telling stories is some sort of natural law.
In a very real sense, laws that extend copyright durations are legalized theft, from the people of the United States -- copyrights were always intended to expire, not last forever. They were always intended to be limited.
The court came down on the 'side' of the spirit and letter of the law as it was written, by those who wrote it. That's only the wrong side if you make your living by grift committed against the public as a whole.
The Sons of Liberty were patriots, and if faced with the world we live in and the governmental abuses we have, the Sons would already be shooting.
By the modern definition of terrorist, most of the Founders of the country were terrorists. Under current US policy that anyone who violently rebels is not a legitimate nation even if they win, the US would not have recognized itself as a legitimate nation back in 1776.
Better still, sue them for defamation -- they called you a thief in a communication to someone you do business with, and the resulting takedown caused your business financial damage.
Sue them not just for monetary damages, but for punitive damages, citing the robo-signed nature of the takedown notice as bad faith under the 'penalty of perjury' clause in the DMCA.
Name all parties that issued the takedown -- the rights holder, the IP company that issued the takedown on their behalf, etc. Don't name the recipient of the takedown, since they are shielded from liability and suing your website host will result in them no longer doing business with you (which will also harm your business).