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.