It's precisely because of people who "evaluate" software that developers will get away with things like this. If this becomes the prevailing argument against moves like this, the heavy-handed developer will win every time.
Every person I know (including business folks) use software they don't paid for. Most of them legalize their Top10-Apps later on, but using copied software isn't a thing few bad people do - it's what everyone does (maybe you don't, but then you're an absolute exception).
Only using an app makes it popular (take Word/Excel as an example), and popularity turns into money in the long run. Example: We're running about 500 MS-Office licenses at work (legally bought, of course). Do we really need to buy an expensive package like office just for some simple letters and calcs? Unfortunately, we need to - cause all employes use MS Office at home and are not willing to learn a different system at work - and be sure that 90% of them don't paid for their private version.
If MS would have made it impossible to used a copied Office 15 years ago, most people would use OpenOffice today. But instead people started using MS-Office not cause they wanted this in particular, but their friends got a copy for them.
And Microsoft knows this. They will never sue private folks for this. If they would start this, most people would switch immediately to Linux and OpenOffice to save hundreds of dollars - and business will follow after that. If they really tend to make it impossible to use copied software, they would dig their own grave.
Anyway, that's my experience how the software business works - maybe I'm completely wrong with this..who knows...
Jake