To me it boils down to a difference between one's perception of what one thing should be, vs. what it is. To say "it's worth $10 at best" when a publisher feels it's worth $50, and that somehow they Just Don't Get It is silly.
Now if you're saying "I would only get it when it's $10" or "it's not that interesting to me, maybe on a cheap impulse buy" then there's different intentions there.
In instance, yes, I would gladly get something for free if that's what the distrobution of the publisher was intending. I picked up Money Island for free this weekend - but there's a difference between saying "I'll get a good game at a good deal" and "I refuse to buy this - they better give it to me before it's befit of my time."
It's splitting semantics to be honest, but I do feel strongly about such minutae. That there's a thin line dividing those who feel entitled to things for the lowest-to-free possible cost, and those who look for good deals but also willing to reward things they find valuable. Even if that means overpaying $40 in someone else's eyes.