Well, to get back to my earlier point, does that also mean that advertisers should be able to remove outdated brochures, sales circulars, or what-have-you, from libraries? Those are outdated too.
Provided the archive displays the date when the copy was made, how would anyone reasonably argue that the sale was still valid? I think you're stretching too far here.
Re the NY Times example from another poster--articles that are only temporarily available for free--I'll grant that materials that the owner is not freely displaying should be handled differently, as I believe the Internet Archive does.
But other material, free, public, linked to: I don't see the problem with that being in a non-commercial archive for public use.
What it comes down to is that there is a sizable amount of public interest in allowing an archive like this to exist. The plaintiffs are suing because, basically, they want it to more effectively hide information that might be damaging to them. While it might be possible technically to allow for greater control over content by its owners, I think that would become a real mess to administer for Internet Archive. And I hope the court recognizes that.