> No. The court specifically determined that the Internet Archive was guilty of unauthorized copying. You're not wrong, but you're treating “guilty of unauthor

> No. The court specifically determined that the Internet Archive was guilty of unauthorized copying. You're not wrong, but you're treating “guilty of unauthorized copying” as a statement of physical fact when in reality it just means it falls under an arbitrary rule invented by humans (namely, the law that defines unauthorized copying). This rule is ambiguous at its edges because it's not written as an algorithm or equation. It was perfectly reasonable for Kahle to believe that the rule can be interpreted in a way that it wouldn't apply and, by dragging it through the courts, have that interpretation be made the established one. Even though the court has now established a competing interpretation, it is still not unreasonable to ask whether the law is fair and just under this interpretation. I feel that it isn't and should be changed.