I wouldn't say that's necessarily true with software. Most of the time with software if I'm looking into pirating something it's because I want it. I don't need it, and therefore the cost is unjustified. Usually I try to go the open-source route, but let's talk hypothetically here. There is a commercial product that I want, but don't need.

I'm never going to buy it. Even if pirating it is unsuccessful, I'll just go a different route. So trying to prevent me from pirating the software isn't protecting profits. It's not persuading me to purchase anything. It's persuading me to look for a free alternative or a competing product. It's taking away it's own market share by pushing me away. I always laughed at Microsoft's efforts to combat pirates. From their perspective any machine running Windows, pirated or legit, is worth more to Microsoft than that same machine NOT running Windows, NOT supporting the Windows ecosystem, and supporting the competition instead. Even if they have to give the product away for free.

If there's a product I need, or a product I need to have licensed for business reasons, I will buy it regardless of whether or not I can pirate it easily or not.

So, at least for me, pirating something is less a question of whether or not I can get away with it than it is a factor of what I find that functionality to be worth. If a $100 piece of software is too much for me I'll pirate it or go somewhere else, but I'll never buy it.

Conversely, if the vendor saved themselves the development time and skipped the DRM to drop the price down to $75 I might consider buying it, even though I could easily pirate it.

It comes down to value. Just because a vendor wants to make $100/unit doesn't mean their product is worth $100/unit, and it doesn't mean I'll ever pay $100/unit. If another product can do the same task for $50/unit that's likely the route I'll take.