I think both approaches are the wrong way to go. Civil disobedience only works if you can get an immense, passionate group of people to partake in it, and do it in such a way as to attract others to the cause. As it stands, most people don't care enough about this for it to actually be a viable form of protest, and those who do are small enough that the public will turn a blind eye to them. More importantly, it is worth noting that this can easily backfire and cause lobbyists to simply push for even harsher laws to combat it, now that they can play the victim even better by pointing to these people as the justification for more regulation.
The hard-lined opposite approach won't work either. Again, because the majority of people aren't passionate about this, they will simply shrug it off and get used to it, whether that is in the form of accepting the new laws or just moving to more covert methods. Furthermore, we already know that Edgar Bronfman isn't (publicly at least) going to give his kids any slack if they are found to be infringing, so what makes you think that any other executives or politicians you mention are going to act differently?