Know nothing about it but it seems a bizarre action.
It does, doesn't it? To recap briefly:
Ubisoft released a patch for the game which added a pack of new multiplayer maps. The patch had disc-based copy protection in it, of course. Lots of people who bought the download only version from Direct2Drive downloaded the patch and found they were asked for a disc they didn't own. Said people complained loudly on Ubisoft's forum. Shortly after, Ubisoft released a new "patch" which removed the disc check so that said complainants could play their game. Shortly after, people noticed that it was byte-for-byte a clone of the cracked EXE which Reloaded had released.
Oops.
I don't see what's wrong with using a NOCD crack on a game you bought. You bought a license to play the game, and if that's what you need to do to play it, I don't see why anyone would have a problem with it, so long as you didn't further distribute it. I certainly wouldn't object to anyone removing the copy protection from any of my games they owned for their own personal use. If I use any copy protection at all, I do it to keep out casual pirates, I don't use it to inconvenience legitimate users, and anything they can do to make the game less trouble is good for me because they don't feel aggrieved.
I do have a problem with people downloading pirated games they don't own because they think they have some kind of God-given right to play my game for a week to see if they like it. I'm entitled to set my own demo limitations and if you don't like my demo limitations, don't buy it. These people are usually full of bluster about being potential customers but they almost never are. A week becomes ten days, becomes two weeks ( my dog was sick on the weekend, so that week doesn't count! ) and they just find ever more elaborate excuses to ease their conscience on why they shouldn't buy it.
Completely different situations, from my perspective. One is a customer, and should be treated as such. One isn't, and should be treated as such.