Civil disobedience is a critical part of a functioning democracy. Defying unjust laws raises awareness of how unjust they are, and if the public is persuaded that the law is wrong then sometimes the laws will end up getting overturned. In the worst case the conscientious objector ends up getting crushed by the system. So when activists break laws they don't do so willy-nilly, because the stakes are so high.

Your claim that laws must always be obeyed in a democracy is gross. Are enslaved people supposed to follow the laws in a democracy that say they cannot fight for their freedom? Are we to condemn black people who organized sit-ins to protest apartheid? Are you not aware that practically all rights we enjoy today are the result of activists who risked their life to fight for these rights? Think for a second about the implications of blind obedience to the law, and the ugly historical record thereof!

We're talking about copyright laws. Not about slavery, apartheid, or anything even close to it. There is no one's life at stake and there is no urgency. If you want to change copyright laws, you are free to use the democratic process and raise awareness to it in a legal way.

He was fighting against unjust laws and policies on the use of academic research and trial data. Better sharing in those fields could definitely save lives.

Who gets to decide which laws are ok to break? What do you think of medical marijuana users in the US (still 100% illegal at the federal level)?

The individual is morally responsible for all their actions, regardless of the legal system in place. The individual has no moral obligation to follow unjust laws, and in some situations a moral obligation exists to break unjust laws and to risk getting punished for it. Under no circumstance does "I was only following the law" or "I was just following orders" work as a moral defense.