An archive very clearly means something very specific, and it's certainly not the "We want free-as-in-beer content!" thing a lot of people here and elsewhere scream about.
If you cannot or will not consider what an archive is legally defined as, you cannot discuss in good faith about archives, archivists, or the act of archiving.
I'm not going to quote a definition to you, the only winning move in that game is not to play, but there are certainly more interpretations of "archive" than just the one. I certainly didn't assume you meant the narrow legal meaning in your original comment, and if you were only willing to entertain a single definition it would have been nice to know that upfront.
> it is *not an infringement of copyright* for a library or archives
Emphasis is mine here. The OPs link does not define what an archive is or isn't, it defines constraints on an archive or library such that it doesn't infringe on copyright according to US law.
To conclude that the IA is not operating an archive because they might be infringing on some copyrights according to US law is fallacious thinking.
You have it backwards. It is not an infringement of copyright if an archive or library reproduces and redistributes according to the exceptions set forth.
The Internet Archive quite clearly does not abide by those exceptions, and as such they are infringing copyright and not an archive protected by these laws.
If the Internet Archive (or anyone and anything for that matter) wants to spend my tax dollars, they can start by first abiding by the laws and regulations of the legal jurisdiction they reside in, in this case the USA's.
> An archive very clearly means something very specific
What you perhaps meant to say was:
"An archive that infringes US copyright laws should not be afforded protections under US law"
Most people, myself included, took issue with the way you dismissed IA as not being an archive altogether; it clearly is an archive and whether or not it infringes US copyright law does not change that fact.
Whether it should be protected by law is a different matter.
An archive doesn't engage in reproduction beyond what is necessary to archive a work or to utilize the academical value of a work, as exempted by the copyright laws concerned.
Internet Archive goes far beyond that and I stand by my claim that it is not an archive.
Staying within the bounds of copyright to do vital preservation work is the best way to set oneself up for failure before you even begin. Piracy is preservation, always has been, always will be, and is always moral for that reason. Large rights holders have zero interest in being stewards of their content for the eventual public domain transfer. They'd rather the work cease to exist than the public own it. That is direct theft from the public in a way that mere copyright infringement, and even monetized copyright infringement, doesn't actually approach the concept of theft. If a rightsholder releases a work, and refuses to preserve it, it is the public's moral imperative to ensure the work endures until copyright lapses.
This does not apply to unreleased work. If you create something and keep it private, I don't consider you to have a moral obligation to ensure your work eventually becomes public domain. If you do distribute that work to the public, at that point I do consider you to have that obligation, and if you won't do it, then someone else has every right to ensure that the public will gain ownership of the work at the appropriate time of copyright expiration.
No one else in this discussion accepts your definition of an archive. No one else is moved by the argument that they violated your chosen definition. The problem isn't that you haven't explained yourself clearly; you have, we understood, and we weren't convinced. Repeating yourself won't change that.
To be frank with you, it seems to me like this organization did something that is counter to your politics, and so you refuse to acknowledge the obvious reality that engaging in archival activity makes them an archive (to all the world if not you personally). I don't think you're speaking from a place of interest in preserving cultural and historic artefacts, it would appear your interest is in lashing out at them because you have chosen to view them as your ideological enemies.
And I think that's a shame, and not compatible with the goal of curious discussion. I think you ought to be able to express your disapproval without taking these ontological liberties. The other commenter's suggestion ("they shouldn't be protected by the law") is a good example.
If you cannot or will not consider what an archive is legally defined as, you cannot discuss in good faith about archives, archivists, or the act of archiving.