See, the "an unjust law should not be obeyed" rhetoric works better when the principle being upheld isn't "I want to be entertained for free".
I can get behind the "the information wants to be free, man" line when we're talking about overpriced textbooks and academic journals and bytecode for tractors, but when it comes to entertainment, I have a hard time caring. I don't think producers have a fundamental right to control recording, performance and distribution, as granted by the gub'mint, but I also don't think the consumers have a fundamental right to consume any cultural artifact for free.
But I do think that people should obey most laws, even ones they disagree with, until some ethereal line has been crossed, simply because it is the law, and I think "I want to be entertained for free" is way too low a bar, so I get kind of disgusted when pirates try to take a high-and-mighty stance.
There are a lot of definitions you could use: a law which denies fundamental rights; a law created by an illegitimate government; a law which makes the world worse.
But if your definition is basically "any law I personally disagree with", you're just advocating for simple anarchy.
All three of the definitions you provided will work fine.
I am denied the fundamental right of expression by copyright.
I am denied the fundamental right of security by DRM.
I am denied the fundamental right of privacy by DRM and copyright enforcement.
The United States bullies other countries like New Zealand and Sweden to enforce its copyright.
Now that Spotify exists, and can afford royalties, all innovation must be done by Spotify, and a select few other incumbents; who are all more likely to favor stability. To do as Spotify did originally (P2P file streaming) is illegal.
Section 1201 of the DMCA prevents lawful security research on anything that includes any form of DRM, making the world less secure, making actors less trustworthy, and seriously degrading privacy.
It is law that I adamantly disagree with for very real reasons. I am sharing my disagreement with anyone who will listen, and hoping for change. That is not a slippery slope to anarchy: it is democracy.
If it's "just entertainment," then why should the government (and by extension, we the people) be engaged in propping up the profitability of their industry?
If you can't find a way to make your entertainment profitable without legal protectionism, maybe you don't deserve too.
I don't really care if the government is in the business of "propping up the profitability" of the entertainment industry. If the laws were changed to reduce or eliminate copyright protections, I'd be fine with that.
I do care about rule of law. If copyright laws are the law of your land, I think that is sufficient reason to follow them, even if you are actively working to get them changed, either because you don't like them specifically or because you don't believe the government should be engaged in unnecessary activities. I don't believe that the existence of copyright law abrogates a fundamental right or denies a fundamental need, so I don't believe there is a legitimate basis for "protest" non-compliance.
