Content providers need to get paid just as much as taxi drivers, taxi drivers even moreso. Content providers can take advantage of the zero marginal cost of them distributing their product, taxi drivers are stuck working at an hourly wage, and for them not to receive at least an hourly wage is tantamount to theft.
This is ultimately just your reasoning. It is either 1) our place as individuals to decide which laws are more necessary (and thus it is fine for some of us to think transportation laws are disruptable or not), or 2) to hold a strict view of regulations and be as unsympathetic to people that write DRM evaders (regardless of the purpose).
I continue to talk to my legislators to explain why Uber shouldn't be allowed to operate in the jurisdiction(s) where I take up residence. I encourage you to do the opposite if that's how you feel.
That's how democracy and government is intended to function.
This is the same reasoning as DMCA btw. I'm curious, have you NEVER gotten ahold of media illegally? Even if you haven't, if artists were to riot on the streets and put people's lives in danger, only have the government make even STRICTER internet laws, would you consider people being concerned by this tone deaf?
If you think the instances are different, what makes it different? Your own personal judgement that taxi laws are actually necessary for taxi drivers but DMCA laws aren't necessary for artists? Both are ultimately "THE LAW". If you have the ability to make a subjective decision, then shouldn't I be able to make it in reverse?