I don't know how many people outside of libraries are following the Aaron Swartz case. He's a "founder" of Readit who has been indicted for several things related to scraping the journal article content from JSTOR. Read Nancy Sims' take. Note as she does: 1) he didn't do it from his own institution's network, 2) he spoofed his MAC address and did other things to dodge the technical protective measures including hiding in a network closet, and 3) we don't know his intention with respect to what he downloaded. Also note that JSTOR has a program for textmining and other research uses of their data so there's no excuse in that regard.
JSTOR supposedly got the content back from him. I find that hard to believe. Now, according to RWW, someone else has shared a much smaller portion of JSTOR content to PirateBay. Yes, the materials themselves are out of copyright; however, they were most certainly not obtained legally if downloaded from JSTOR.
JSTOR is a great service, but if they don't somehow make it clear to publishers that they are doing everything they can to prevent this sort of thing, then their business might suffer. We'll see.
update:Based on this ars piece, I guess we do know Swartz' intentions.
It's safe to say that Swartz would approve of Maxwell's actions. In a 2008 "Guerrilla Open Access Manifesto" first reported by the New York Times, Swartz wrote that "we need to download scientific journals and upload them to file-sharing networks."
update 2: Kristen Eschenfelder has a great post on the topic. She points out that this isn't effective as civil disobedience because it was done in secret, and anyway it's the wrong target if that's the goal. Go read it.