The reason this sort of scheme never works is called prosecutorial discretion. If your purpose is to show how the law is an absurdity then prosecutors who see through you can choose not to prosecute in that case because they don't want to enable you to change a law they want to stay the way it is.
Overtly breaking the law doesn't get the law changed, it just makes the law unenforceable in most cases. Look at what happened with all the people printing DeCSS on t-shirts -- I'm not aware of any of them actually being convicted of violating the DMCA. The fact that the code was so widely distributed meant that it could never be suppressed and anyone (i.e. any pirate) who lives outside the law has ready access to it, but the law is still sitting there on the books screwing over the people who won't risk prosecution, who then can't make innovative products that would otherwise have to interact with DRM.
Having the law stay on the books but never be enforced (or never enforced against "good" actions) is a totally unreasonable outcome. Because plenty of people will be deterred from doing "good" things as a result of the possibility of being prosecuted, even if it doesn't happen in practice. The law actually has to be changed, either in Congress or in the courts.
In reality, though, either strategy misses the grander problem, which is not about the letter of the law, but about selective prosecution that dehumanizes arbitrary victims for the purposes of career advancement, personal grudges, and maintaining bureaucratic budgets.
An unnamed politician was wrongly linked to a paedophile sex scandal. Twitter users named that man, and called him a paedophile. (He isn't!) Many thousands of people repeated this slander.
Lord McAlpine was potentially going to sue 10,000 people.
(http://blogs.wsj.com/tech-europe/2012/11/22/mcalpine-forces-...)