The system needs to be reformed, and that is currently happening, peacefully. Perhaps not everywhere at once and perhaps not as quickly as you might prefer, but open access publishing has made great strides in just a few short years.
This doesn't liberate the millions (probably) of academic articles whose authors relinquished their copyright to big publishers, but it is resulting in new tensions like Germany and Elsevier butting heads (https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-00093-7) and SciHub and exciting new legislation
No destruction or 'very slight law-breaking' necessary, nor mealy-mouthed 'inadequate equilibria' lies-to-self necessary either. Change is happening, the world doesn't need to go all Mad Max.
You mean SciHub. That's the thing, really; SciHub managed to do much more for the Open Access cause in one single move than the entire "legit" Open Access movement in more than a decade.
See: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/leap.1116
Tensions like Germany vs Elsevier are possible, because Open Access is now talking from position of strength - because everyone involved knows that the alternative is not "no access", but "SciHub" or "#ICanHasPDF".
> I would want the laws to carry some force beyond just the barrel of a gun – a high trust society with consistent institutions is really important, and the more people follow the law without being watched the less incentive there is to create a police state. But I also wouldn’t want to live [where every law is enforced 100% of the time]...
http://slatestarcodex.com/2018/03/19/the-dark-rule-utilitari...
"So this is my argument that Sci-Hub can be ethical. Universalized it would destroy the system – but the system is bad and needs to be destroyed. And although this would break the law, a very slight amount of law-breaking might be a beneficial solution to inadequate equilibria that could be endorsed even when universalized."