It is not contrarian, I was replying to two separate points. The first was the claim that I was saying that Google should have set up its system to circumvent the law; the is not what I was saying. The second was the claim that we must either circumvent laws or change them; my point was that the choice is not exclusive.

As for the point of the laws being faulty, what I was saying was that the laws were designed with a particular communications model in mind. Google's system is designed very differently from that model, but despite Google's popularity and despite other services adopting a model similar to Google's the law has not changed. Just saying that the law is at fault is too simplistic; the laws may have good reasons behind them and may have made sense at the time they were passed (and had technology not changed, the laws might still make sense now).