It's impossible to speak authoritatively for a large community with widely differing opinions, but it appears to me that for a lot of people, the distinction of

It's impossible to speak authoritatively for a large community with widely differing opinions, but it appears to me that for a lot of people, the distinction of whether or not a copyright violation is immoral or not is dependent on whether the instigator is actively profiting from the violation. If you download Game of Thrones to watch on your laptop, there is a long and circuitous argument we can have about exactly how much you're harming HBO, but it's pretty clear that the only thing you're gaining is the ability to consume the TV show you've pirated. If your business's web site is based on someone else's code without proper licensing, and that design is presumably a factor in customers choosing to patronize you, you now have a tangible financial gain that is owed (at least in part) to a copyright violation. It's a flawed analogy, but this is less like downloading an episode of Game of Thrones and more like selling bootleg DVDs of the show.