Before anyone replies to the editorialized headline, his argument (including the second part cited in the comments here) is that the charges were fair according to the law but constituted a minor crime in a way the law fails to discern, and this issue also happens to be his pet peeve. Which is probably true, but (also understandably for a legal scholar) doesn't touch one point: this was a political action and statement that tried to challenge the nature of this law, in the same way current shadow libraries also are.