To be clear here, you're advocating illegal activity and negatively impacting the artist who created the music you like, because you dislike a business model. FYI, in case you missed it, music purchased from ITMS is DRM free.
In this scenario, the only person who has ended up without something they initially had is the consumer. At worst the artist lost a potential future sale, which very likely wouldn't have been made due to the consumer having paid for the content previously. The consumer who paid for the ability to listen to their music, had it taken away, and pirates it as a result, is simply regaining access to content they had been deprived of.
Now, if the artist got an insufficient or unfair cut from the original Lala purchase, that's between the artist and their publisher. Also not something the consumer is responsible for.
When laws are bad, civil disobedience is morally justified. It's arguably a moral obligation.
> negatively impacting the artist who created the music you like
The guy has already paid for the music. Downloading it will make no difference to the musicians. If someone likes a band, thy can go to their gigs or give them money directly; enriching the likes of the RIAA or Apple is morally wrong, because these people will use that money to restrict everyone's freedom.
> because you dislike a business model
Some business models are evil.
> FYI, in case you missed it, music purchased from ITMS is DRM free.
Irrelevant; music on streaming services such as Lala has DRM, since the whole point of a streaming service is that the listener isn't supposed to get control of a copy (obviously there are ways round that).