So they aren't making copies? How then do they have an archive of internet resources if not by copying said resources?

You do realise the "downloading" is implicitly a copy.

If you want to actually have a civil discussion then you need to make some reasonable argument than "They're not making copies either."

Sounds like whatever role you played at IA when you were there didn't give you any actual insight into what happens in operation and you simply tried to prove your point with an appeal to authority instead of backing it with facts and reason.

Ahem. We are discussing items which have been hidden. A hidden item which users of the archive cannot access is not being copied. It’s just sitting there on a drive. Occasionally an automated process comes along and computes its hash to make sure there hasn’t been any bitrot. There’s no warehouse of undistributed copies of the thing that a court can order the Archive to destroy.

How did it get to the drive other than having been copied there?

You are once again discussing distribution not copying.

Your distinction might apply to an individual holding one or two copies of some copyrighted material because it isn't worth the legal hassle to go after them.

For someone like the IA holding terabytes, by your claims, of copyrighted material. "Big copyright" absolutely will go after them for that if it is true and it would sink the IA in legal fees.

There's nuance in all things, why I said if you actually care hire a lawyer just like they would. But your comment of "copying is fine, if you don't distribute" only applies where fair use applies which means if I hold terabytes of copies I am not legally allowed to have made, I'm probably going to be spending a large portion of my life repaying that decision, just like any other person would, should I get caught.