I am guilty of doing this very thing, or rather, buying games legitimately and then removing the DRM from said legally purchased game (Ubisoft, I'm looking at you). I don't agree with companies' stance on combating piracy by implementing always-online DRM because it doesn't do anything to stop piracy. If anything, it exacerbates the issue; if they truly want people to obtain their games by legal means, invasive draconian anti-piracy measures are not going to attract potential buyers. Splinter Cell Conviction comes to mind. I bought the game from their store, they gave me a key code to activate the game with, but this was on my parent's connection (which is both very fast and very stable) and the always-online DRM isn't an issue. I move out to an apartment complex where the internet is more unstable/drops frequently. This makes the DRM a roadblock and the game impossible to play because of the unstable nature of the connection. So tell me what's more immoral, the company making such restrictive DRM to legitimate customers to the point of making a well-spent purchase unusable due to s****y internet, or to have a customer download a patch that makes his/her legally purchased game usable regardless of the internet?
As for piracy, what people do in their homes is their business. I'm not going to impose my beliefs on other people. Personally, I couldn't care less, especially when it comes to legitimately purchased products like always-internet enabled games. If people spend the money and have bad internet, they should be able to play the game without such restrictions. Draconian DRM doesn't stop piracy, like look at Sim City and Maxis/EA. That worked well for them, right?