Breaking the law is often instrumental to changing it. The progressive collapse of marijuana prohibition wouldn't have happened if people hadn't consistently disobeyed the law. Civil Rights wouldn't have happened without people actively breaking the laws at issue.
And so on.
Should the author of some text have a right to ask money from people, for allowing them to read it? I think they should have such right and it is wrong to break it.
Should the users of Hacker News promote expensive software, websites ... when there are cheaper or free alternatives? The users of Hacker News should be educated. Unless Bloomberg has several HN accounts and upvoted this link itself.
So your issue isn't “if you think the law is wrong, breaking it isn't a solution” but “disagreeing with the law is wrong”. Which may be a legitimate opinion, but it is dishonest to say the first when you mean the second, and your disagreement with the action isn't because you think people should work to change the law without breaking it as a tactical approaches, but because you think people should support the law in the first place.