"Leaving aside the technical aspects of all this, is it legitimate to build software that cannot be run if it is pirated? "
I was called every name in the book. By "conservatives".
Yeah we see them in all their glory on this thread too, obviously not conservative but liber-tarian which is why they so closely resemble liber-als. Their favorite thing is anything "free", which is why they can give you a half dozen different definitions of the word via their slogans, free as in beer, free as in speech, free as in libre, etc etc etc., and even while leftists dominate their movement as you can see all they really want to talk about is destroying Microsoft since their software ISN'T free.
WOW!
That is sad. I'm not really for the federal government or state government becoming the enforcement arm of the RIAA, or working for Microsoft, but geez, I don't have a problem with either the RIAA or Microsoft putting out products that they think are copy-proof. I don't think copyrights should be extended for the lengths they have been, and I don't think software should be copyrighted but should be patented instead. However, saying you CAN'T make pirate-proof (nominally, anyway) stuff is simply crazy leftist.
It's amazing that these 'conservative' folks insulted you for such a fundamental property right as protecting the property you own. If a landlord puts a clause in a lease saying he has the right to inspect his property on a regular basis, you have the right to not buy it. If you want the property enough, you'll put up with the accompanying b.s. If not, you won't, you'll go elsewhere. That's capitalism.