No. But if Ferrari a) had no dealerships in your country, and provided no legal way for you to import, and/or b) decided they would only sell their $150k cars to owners of $1M houses, then (assuming you don't own a $1M house) they'd be refusing to sell to you. And in that circumstance, if there existed some way for you to acquire a free Ferrari in a way that didn't involve taking value away from anyone else, but in fact helped advertise the Ferrari name, then both you and Ferrari would benefit from your doing so.
Of course, this is an absolutely ridiculous metaphor because physical property and intellectual property are very different things. When I steal physical X, the owner doesn't have X anymore. When I pirate intellectual X, the owner still has X. There are plenty of reasonable arguments in favor of IP protection and against piracy -- and those arguments can be and have been made on HN -- but given how well-established that basic distinction is, whenever you equate piracy with stealing physical objects you're essentially giving up any pretense of discussing these issues in good faith.
That's a lot of convoluted reasoning to try and justify that you are not paying for something when you know you should be. Since you can't legally pay for it, you should go without.
Of course, this is an absolutely ridiculous metaphor because physical property and intellectual property are very different things. When I steal physical X, the owner doesn't have X anymore. When I pirate intellectual X, the owner still has X. There are plenty of reasonable arguments in favor of IP protection and against piracy -- and those arguments can be and have been made on HN -- but given how well-established that basic distinction is, whenever you equate piracy with stealing physical objects you're essentially giving up any pretense of discussing these issues in good faith.