I don't even think this law is bad, other than maybe being too harsh. If this was allowed, why would anyone ever buy a book? I'm not going to pay any amount of money for a book I can legally digitally download for free. I realize physical books have an attractive quality, but I don't think that's enough to support an entire industry.

I think you're framing this as a novel angle, but everyone has already arrived at this angle. Yes, it's admirable that they're fighting the good fight, but there is a terrible price: the potential of losing IA. For not just us, but future generations. IA is essential to historical research right now, and holding a match to it unless some relatively-trivial copyright changes are made is questionable, is it not?

> When laws are bad, people should thumb their nose at them

You (and Internet Archive) are about to learn what happens when the courts fail to be persuaded regarding the 'badness' of the law in question.

All throughout history there have been people who break laws they disagree with and get punished for it

Sometimes those laws wind up changed later, because of their actions

I personally don't agree that this particular thing is worth taking a stand on, but I do applaud Internet Archive for being willing to take a stand for what they believe is important enough. It takes guts

I think this issue is worth taking a stand on, and through this entire situation I'm just peeved that they chose this particular way to fight for it.

They couldn't find a more effective and less risky way to try to change the law than bashing their face against it, with predictable results?

> When laws are bad, people should thumb their nose at them

Sure. But use some intelligence and risk management when you're doing it.

This was just outright stupidity, and there's no excuse for it. :( :( :(

You misread; He didn't say all laws are bad. But, only an idiot can think that a world where corps write laws isn't corrupt. None of us, right?