There are three points I could make:

1. Most software that is not free these days is also stealing all your private data. The value in these applications is generally greatly reduced, and in many cases, truly free alternatives exist, so the need to pirate should be much reduced from the past.

2. Where the first point doesn't apply, there is usually a reason. Either the company has used their monopoly powers to force people to use their software in order to do their job or to interact with government agencies (Adobe is one that often comes to mind). In this case, the ethics of the situation IMHO mean that pirating is OK. If the company is doing unethical things to force you to buy something, then doing something unethical to not pay for it is an exception in my opinion. The person would not be buying the software if they weren't forced to and purchases should not be forced.

3. Access for the poor is another issue where I don't see this as an issue. The poor will never be able to afford the software, so no one is losing money on the sale and it only benefits the company to have people using it if it's a locally running application. There may be some concerns if there are essential services involved that require servers or other systems that have to be maintained by the vendor, but otherwise, Windows having been pirated for decades made it ubiquitous. Without that, poor people likely would never have touched Windows and would have learned Linux or Mac or something else instead and Windows wouldn't have as many people locked in as it does now. So, for the poor, assuming it's software that runs locally, I see no issues from an ethical standpoint in general.

These are just my opinions, but I'm not alone. And this is not to be used as justification for specific actions, just very general points about the ethics of software piracy. For reference, I've done a lot of research on software ethics from both the user and vendor side and used to run a nonprofit on this subject.