You'll have to specify whom and how they are trivializing it. But it remains true that copying something is totally different from taking a physical object. For example: using an illegal copy of Adobe Photoshop is not the same as stealing someone's physical photo processing equipment. In one case, tangible property is lost. In the other case, an unauthorized copy is made. In this perspective, copyright infringement is not of an equal magnitude as physical theft. So is it trivializing piracy to point out such a fact?

This is how the industry made it to activation. They saw the same things I am seeing. The next obvious step would be for me to add activation myself. From talking with other shareware writers I know who have done so, I can expect sales to go up a good bit. But I detest activation so I won't, but I can see why some vendors push it. There are certain categories of software where it will not adversely affect demand and convert pirates into (grudgingly, I'm sure) paying customers.

This is beside the point, and is an issue of the viable market, not of the main subject of this thread. However, my views, are that the software company has the right to use whatever method of protection that they desire. However, here is the catch: they should have no right of expectation of the government to back up their [today, often absurd] methods. This does not apply to your method[with is the only fair method of this sort]. But activation, EULAs, etc.; are not a balanced set of rules. The foundation of copyright was to have an equally balanced system of give and take among IP originators and consumers, in the spirit  of promoting new work(s). Today, such balance for the most part, does not exist, with software products, for example, because the courts and government seemingly side with any inane idea that is conceived today by software giants, totally screwing the citizen/consumer rights. EULAs on retailed software, for example, are totally against any sort of proper contract. How in any logical world, can you force an agreement on someone AFTER you took money/sold the product? It's makes no rational sense. DRM or other methods that require manufacturer 'permission' to use after you buy it: the product is not reliable to work in the future, it is totally dependant on the willing continued support of the manufacturer. While I said earlier it is a right for them to use this, it should be completely legal for cracks to be made for said items to ensure fair[non encumbered] consumer use of purchased products. This would probably cause such DRM to be used seldom, since such bypasses would be a legal right of use. To be able to tell people what they can or can't do to or with their property is absurd.