You see, a saw that is used to cut up and dispose of a human body is considered to be involved in the killing. It was a tool used in the killing and disposal of the body. Someone who helps hide a murdered body is considered an accomplice to that murder, and the tools they use to do so are considered murder weapons under law.
The spoon is used to dispose of the chunks of chicken in chicken noodle soup (or other meats in other soups - or for many other meat-eating uses) by way of digestion.
Oh, I get it, you are just a lying sack of shit.
I assure you I am neither lying, nor a sack of this, sir.
I never said anything negative about hunting.
It sure seemed as though that was your intend. Misunderstanding someone's poorly written text does not make one a liar; and apparently, looking at other replies here (and to past threads where you've poorly worded something and called me a liar for interpreting it the same way as everyone else), it would appear I'm not the only one who read it that way.
Just that the person I'm responding to lumped hunting in with "non fatal" uses of guns.
Well, they're less fatal than allowing animals to overpopulate, eat through their entire food supply, and starve to death. It is 100% true that many times fewer animals die of gunshot wounds each year than would die if we stopped limiting their population. Could we club them to death? Stab them or slit their throats? Shoot them with arrows? Spoon their eyes out, then use the handle of the spoon to scramble their brains (because spoons are also deadly)? Sure, we could; and there are any number of other ways could limit animal populations so they don't eat through their entire food supply and kill themselves and any other animals who share that food supply or use it for habitat. None of them are as humane as a bullet to the head.
Of course, that doesn't really cover, say, fox hunting. But, then, that's typically only done the the extremely wealthy in the first place; and they'll just buy their way around a gun ban if one ever happens. They're not worth talking about because their rights aren't up for grabs here.
If guns are not fatal in hunting, why are so many hunters using them?
That's actually exactly why they're used. Would you rather we make animals suffer when they're chosen to die for the preservation of the rest of their species? Or should we just let the populations overgrow and die out entirely? I mean, it's what we're doing with humans and it really doesn't seem to be working, I think we need to start culling.
I propose we start with those who don't understand what culling is and why it must be done. You know, so we, as a species, don't forget again and stop doing it.
When guns are outlawed in a country, gun deaths (and total deaths) drop (see Australia).
Funny you should say "a country", then give exactly one example. You can't give another.
Point the gun at the rangemaster. Point the gun at the other people around you. People who know and are familiar with guns. See how they react to your "safe" gun. You'll likely be kicked out in a few seconds.
That's more of a respect and following the rules of the range issue than anything else. If you can't respect the simple command "keep your weapon pointed down range at all times" with an unloaded and incapable of firing weapon, nobody is going to want to see how you'll behave with a loaded one. The rule is never "keep your loaded weapon pointed down range at all times" and for good reason; anyone who'd break that rule will break it with an unloaded weapon first, while they can be safely removed from the situation.
"sporting" is a useless description that is used to mean all non-human-target shots. Paper target and hunting are lumped together. Seems to not be a good delineator.
"Eating soup" is a useless description that is used to mean all liquid-based dishes. Split pea and chicken noodle are lumped together. Seems not to be a good delineator.
You see, spoons are commonly involved in the killing of innocent animals for consumption by humans. If you're okay with that, what's your problem with hunting?
If emoji is the only way you can give your text a bit of flavor and context, that's your failing, not that of the text. Not all text is flat and emotionless; in fact, most is quite layered and impactful, you just have to use a couple of brain cells while writing (and reading) to achieve the desired effect.
Quick! Everyone sue Dixon! Many a death threat has been scrawled on the back of a failed homework assignment with an errant Ticonderoga, they must be held accountable for their actions!
He said one case... just one... And, here's the kicker, I started writing this post before clicking your links; I was going to jokingly call you an idiot for citing two cases when he asked for just one. But no!! It gets better!!!
You give him resources detailing laws and guidelines explaining how one might be liable for damages resulting from failure to report a credible threat. But, in all of that, not one single case is cited.
The solution is the same amount of government, just less overreach so they can effectively enforce the policies that are in place. That means scaling back shit the government wants in favor of assigning those resources to things the people need. Like enforcement of existing laws regarding anti-competitive practices and privacy violations.
Against my better judgment, since there really should be no reason the user can't pull out their phone (or use a browser while signed in to your account) and navigate to https://account.live.com/password/reset (found by googling "reset microsoft account password") and reset their password... because this may be useful for someone who isn't trying to snoop on their kids' porn viewing activities.
If you're an admin user you should be able to take ownership of their user directory and everything in it. Navigate to C:\Users, right-click their user directory, then select Properties, click over to the Security tab, and click Advanced. You should see the Owner line near the top of the resulting dialog, click Change and seelct your user. A checkbox will appear below thee Owner line labeled "Replace owner on subcontainers and objects", you'll want to check that as well.
I recently had to do this on a folder inside my own home directory after I royally screwed some file permissions in Cygwin,.
Now, the different distros do also have their own package managers that handle dependencies and such, but that's separate from (even if often in place of) manually installing the software. Oh, and that's been the command for 36 years.
If it's a local account, the option will be there. If they signed in via their Microsoft account, they'll need to change their Microsoft account password, which you cannot do for them. Microsoft has password recovery features for this very purpose, though it is a bit onerous if they've also lost their phone and can't access their email.
I did, in fact, research the geographic distribution of Apple's phone sales; how do you think I was able to tell you my sample covers more than 92% of that population? As for the rest, no. I ddn't draw any conclusioms from my data that would require that I do so. I merely stated that the iPhone users I know all upgrade yearly and that they account for a not-statistically-insignificant portion of the population. You're the one trying to turn this into a full-blown fucking study. At this point I'm not sure if you're trolling or just a dipshit but I'm done with you.
So it's relevant to why, but we're not discussing why they upgrade, we're discussing if they upgrade. Note the use of the word "upgrade". A used phone can still be an upgrade, and I never said "new".
Considering that the US, Europe, China, and Japan account for 92.798% of iPhone sales and my sample covers those countries and then some, across a variety of carriers (again, I'm not just acquainted with, say, Verizon customers), it's a safe bet my bases are covered. Statistical surveys aren't intended to be 100% perfect; they cant be. The only way to get 100% perfect accuracy, which is what it seems you're after, is to poll 100% of the population. Again, statistically valid studies are done on populations of 3+ billion with less than 4x my sample size, and we're talking about a population of less than 1/5 that size with a well distributed sample size.
You can argue with me all you want but, until you've done your own study, you really don't know whether or not mine is valid.
Are you implying that I cherry-pick my contacts and only associate with people who upgrade their phones regularly? I suppose, next, you're going to claim I chose to do so, putting together this specific list of contacts over the course of nearly two decades (long before the iPhone even existed) specifically so I could point to those users in this conversation, right?
Did you forget about the *representative* sample part?
Nope.
Are your "dozens" of friends representative of the cross section of the worldwide customer base of people who use iPhones?
First of all, I never said "friends", I said "every iPhone owner I know" and "people I know and communicate with frequently". That mostly includes colleagues and clients and, yes, that group consists of people of all races, genders, sexual orientations, income levels, and nationalities, both in the US and abroad, so I should think it does.
Save yourself some time and embarrassment, review my posting history and realize the following: If I open my mouth, I have a high degree of certainty that I am correct; but, I remain open to the idea that I am wrong, as well. If someone points out that I may be incorrect, I listen, I evaluate, and I thank them if it turns out that they've managed to correct me. It happens at least once every couple of months, more when I'm more active here; it's called learning and personal growth and you should try it.
Wow, you actually read my entire long-ass, off-the-cuff tirade and responded? You just made me double-check that I was at the right site, sir.
I tend to agree with your thoughts on the very evilness of corporations. It's a well known fact that cream only rises to the top when there's no churn and, well, companies are constantly looking for reasons to get rid of their brightest and best, the free-thinkers that can actually do good for them, so there's plenty of churn. Add to that the fact that companies tend not to want to promote a the most productive workers to management (which means they also never make it to the higher ranks) because it would mean reducing the productivity of that worker's department; and those people are usually more productive because they have some insight that lets them work more efficiently or effectively. Those are the very people who could, elevated to a high enough position within the organization, spread their more effective work habits in the form of corporate policies and procedures intended to help everyone work better; instead, they promote the SJW that spends all day on Facebook and they end up with policies to match.
And yes, those who don’t or can’t pay hopefully will one day. Hollywood, ASCAP etc. shouldn’t make them enemies.
And those who currently do pay, as well. Hopefully, they'll continue to pay, but they're doing a damn fine job of making enemies out of us, as well!
Studies are done on a population of billions with only a few hundred participants with an acceptable margin of error (385 participants nets a margin of error of 5% and a confidence level of 95% in a population of 3 billion); when you're only considering millions, a sampling of even a couple dozen will result in a statistically acceptable margin of error and confidence level.
To my point, a sample size of only 97 grants us a 10% margin of error given your proposed population of 160 million; my sample size is easily larger than that and my margin of error is nearer to 9% with a confidence level of 95%. That's pretty damn statistically significant.
Don't take my word for it; the math is well known and relatively simple, but there are also sample size calculators that can do the work for you.
So why do you think your anecdotal evidence is relevant?
For a start, I know a lot of people with iPhones. Enough to be statistically relevant. We're not talking about my phone, we're talking about several dozen, if not over a hundred phones belonging to people I know and communicate with frequently enough to notice they've upgraded their phone. If I was simply talking about my or my wife's upgrade habits, or maybe a handful of my closest friend,s you might have a valid point; but we're not and you don't.
If most people upgrade their device yearly, why would Apple bother providing iOS updates for circa 2011 iPhone 4s?
Because, as I said in my previous post:
Some are behind the curve, upgrading to the from the 3yr old device to the 2yr old device because they're broke AF, but they all upgrade yearly.
Apple still sells the devices, therefore Apple still supports the devices.
Even iOS 10,when released will support every phone released since 2012.
Sorry, not gonna let this devolve into an Android vs iOS holy war. If you'd read my entire post before spouting off, you'd realize that I do, in fact, also use iOS. Just don't be surprised when the support stops at 4 years and 2012 devices don't get iOS 10; it would be a first if they did.
Sorry in advance for the wall of text. Much of it is not aimed at you, but rather at those involved in copyright-protected industries.
I’m sure many download things they never get time to watch, listen to or run, just because the occasion is there.
I know I did back when I was so broke that $20 for a DVD was just not in the budget. Yes, I get it, I had the $600 computer to download shit on; except that I didn't buy that $600 computer, it was a gift, and I'd have had to have bought a DVD player and TV, neither of which fit into a budget that already doesn't have $20 of leeway, if I didn't have the computer. In fact, I'm almost certain I still have much of that content burned to discs somewhere, long forgotten and still likely to never be viewed. I don't count as lost sales for any of it, because I never had the budget to potentially count as a sale when I downloaded it, and I have no interest in the content today. If I do have interest in any of that content at some point in the future, I'll go snag the blu-ray (or whatever format is current at that time) so I'm not stuck with the sub-DVD-quality shit I downloaded in my teen years. That is to say, I'm still a potential sale for each and every piece of media I downloaded all those years ago and, in fact, have converted quite a few sales in the form of DVD purchases once my budget expanded a bit.
Yes, some people who could pay do pirate. Hell, even some of them would pay if they couldn't pirate. But, here's the thing: you can't count people who can't pay as lost sales because you can't squeeze money out of them that they don't have. And you can't count people who would never pay as lost sales because even if their only option was to buy, they wouldn't; they would simply go without. Those are two classes of people you're just never going to get a cent from, period, and they need to be ignored; they're not your customers and they're not worth your time. This applies to any industry, by the way, not just those governed by copyright.
The only potential for growth is people who would give you money but aren't, and targeting them directly is often not the wisest move. Especially in the case of the entertainment industry, adding all these warnings and DRM restrictions to legitimately purchased media. That shit only affects your paying customers, whose asses you should be kissing royally. And pursuing violators? If your profits are truly and really threatened by them, sure; if they're selling your product out from under you and they actually have the means, as a result of that, to pay out more than it will cost to pursue them, go for it. But spending more than you can reasonably recover to sue Joe Bloggs for sharing a copy of an album or movie? That just drives prices up and profits down; it hurts everybody, the person or entity being sued, the studio that won't recover the money from that lawsuit, and the paying customers who suffer higher prices as a result.
Concentrate on kissing the asses of your customers, make them exceedingly happy to have forked over their hard-earned money in your direction. This means no onerous warnings (that don't apply to them, as they bought the damn thing) on the media they've legally purchased, no draconian restrictions that prevent them from using the media for whatever noncommercial purpose they see fit, no forced content (ads, previews, and other preroll shit -- go ahead and include them as extras, but don't make me watch them), and, you know what? People will buy it in droves.
Will the lack of warnings increase the incidence of piracy? No, pirates don't see that shit anyway. Will the lack of DRM increase the incidence of piracy? Fuck no, DRM is usually broken before the media is officially released anyway. Will profits decline if you can't charge as much for ads because they're not a forced pre-roll? Maybe; per-unit margins will be slimmer, but I'm betting it would be made up for in volume as more people bother to buy the shit in the
Slashdot Mirror
Slashdot's threading is fucked, my friend. It has been for years.
No, they are not.
You see, a saw that is used to cut up and dispose of a human body is considered to be involved in the killing. It was a tool used in the killing and disposal of the body. Someone who helps hide a murdered body is considered an accomplice to that murder, and the tools they use to do so are considered murder weapons under law.
The spoon is used to dispose of the chunks of chicken in chicken noodle soup (or other meats in other soups - or for many other meat-eating uses) by way of digestion.
Oh, I get it, you are just a lying sack of shit.
I assure you I am neither lying, nor a sack of this, sir.
I never said anything negative about hunting.
It sure seemed as though that was your intend. Misunderstanding someone's poorly written text does not make one a liar; and apparently, looking at other replies here (and to past threads where you've poorly worded something and called me a liar for interpreting it the same way as everyone else), it would appear I'm not the only one who read it that way.
Just that the person I'm responding to lumped hunting in with "non fatal" uses of guns.
Well, they're less fatal than allowing animals to overpopulate, eat through their entire food supply, and starve to death. It is 100% true that many times fewer animals die of gunshot wounds each year than would die if we stopped limiting their population. Could we club them to death? Stab them or slit their throats? Shoot them with arrows? Spoon their eyes out, then use the handle of the spoon to scramble their brains (because spoons are also deadly)? Sure, we could; and there are any number of other ways could limit animal populations so they don't eat through their entire food supply and kill themselves and any other animals who share that food supply or use it for habitat. None of them are as humane as a bullet to the head.
Of course, that doesn't really cover, say, fox hunting. But, then, that's typically only done the the extremely wealthy in the first place; and they'll just buy their way around a gun ban if one ever happens. They're not worth talking about because their rights aren't up for grabs here.
If guns are not fatal in hunting, why are so many hunters using them?
That's actually exactly why they're used. Would you rather we make animals suffer when they're chosen to die for the preservation of the rest of their species? Or should we just let the populations overgrow and die out entirely? I mean, it's what we're doing with humans and it really doesn't seem to be working, I think we need to start culling.
I propose we start with those who don't understand what culling is and why it must be done. You know, so we, as a species, don't forget again and stop doing it.
When guns are outlawed in a country, gun deaths (and total deaths) drop (see Australia).
Funny you should say "a country", then give exactly one example. You can't give another.
Point the gun at the rangemaster. Point the gun at the other people around you. People who know and are familiar with guns. See how they react to your "safe" gun. You'll likely be kicked out in a few seconds.
That's more of a respect and following the rules of the range issue than anything else. If you can't respect the simple command "keep your weapon pointed down range at all times" with an unloaded and incapable of firing weapon, nobody is going to want to see how you'll behave with a loaded one. The rule is never "keep your loaded weapon pointed down range at all times" and for good reason; anyone who'd break that rule will break it with an unloaded weapon first, while they can be safely removed from the situation.
"sporting" is a useless description that is used to mean all non-human-target shots. Paper target and hunting are lumped together. Seems to not be a good delineator.
"Eating soup" is a useless description that is used to mean all liquid-based dishes. Split pea and chicken noodle are lumped together. Seems not to be a good delineator.
You see, spoons are commonly involved in the killing of innocent animals for consumption by humans. If you're okay with that, what's your problem with hunting?
If emoji is the only way you can give your text a bit of flavor and context, that's your failing, not that of the text. Not all text is flat and emotionless; in fact, most is quite layered and impactful, you just have to use a couple of brain cells while writing (and reading) to achieve the desired effect.
Quick! Everyone sue Dixon! Many a death threat has been scrawled on the back of a failed homework assignment with an errant Ticonderoga, they must be held accountable for their actions!
Why aren't people afraid of spoons, then?
He said one case... just one... And, here's the kicker, I started writing this post before clicking your links; I was going to jokingly call you an idiot for citing two cases when he asked for just one. But no!! It gets better!!!
You give him resources detailing laws and guidelines explaining how one might be liable for damages resulting from failure to report a credible threat. But, in all of that, not one single case is cited.
Not.
A.
Single.
One.
You idiot...
You think the NSA isn't the leading VPN provider worldwide? They'd absolutely fucking love it..
The solution is the same amount of government, just less overreach so they can effectively enforce the policies that are in place. That means scaling back shit the government wants in favor of assigning those resources to things the people need. Like enforcement of existing laws regarding anti-competitive practices and privacy violations.
Against my better judgment, since there really should be no reason the user can't pull out their phone (or use a browser while signed in to your account) and navigate to https://account.live.com/password/reset (found by googling "reset microsoft account password") and reset their password... because this may be useful for someone who isn't trying to snoop on their kids' porn viewing activities.
If you're an admin user you should be able to take ownership of their user directory and everything in it. Navigate to C:\Users, right-click their user directory, then select Properties, click over to the Security tab, and click Advanced. You should see the Owner line near the top of the resulting dialog, click Change and seelct your user. A checkbox will appear below thee Owner line labeled "Replace owner on subcontainers and objects", you'll want to check that as well.
I recently had to do this on a folder inside my own home directory after I royally screwed some file permissions in Cygwin,.
tar -xzf [archive name] [install location]
Works everywhere.
Now, the different distros do also have their own package managers that handle dependencies and such, but that's separate from (even if often in place of) manually installing the software. Oh, and that's been the command for 36 years.
If it's a local account, the option will be there. If they signed in via their Microsoft account, they'll need to change their Microsoft account password, which you cannot do for them. Microsoft has password recovery features for this very purpose, though it is a bit onerous if they've also lost their phone and can't access their email.
I'll assume you simply didn't see that. But seriously, we're done here.
I did, in fact, research the geographic distribution of Apple's phone sales; how do you think I was able to tell you my sample covers more than 92% of that population? As for the rest, no. I ddn't draw any conclusioms from my data that would require that I do so. I merely stated that the iPhone users I know all upgrade yearly and that they account for a not-statistically-insignificant portion of the population. You're the one trying to turn this into a full-blown fucking study. At this point I'm not sure if you're trolling or just a dipshit but I'm done with you.
And my sample covers well over 90% of the iPhone-buying set. Stop being a fuckind pedant, it will get you nowhere in life.
So it's relevant to why, but we're not discussing why they upgrade, we're discussing if they upgrade. Note the use of the word "upgrade". A used phone can still be an upgrade, and I never said "new".
So now you've claimed to "have done a study"?
More of one than you have.
Care to show your statitistical model and sample in relation to how many phones each carrier sold in each region?
No. None of that is relevant to how often the average iPhone user upgrades their fucking phone, you dolt.
Considering that the US, Europe, China, and Japan account for 92.798% of iPhone sales and my sample covers those countries and then some, across a variety of carriers (again, I'm not just acquainted with, say, Verizon customers), it's a safe bet my bases are covered. Statistical surveys aren't intended to be 100% perfect; they cant be. The only way to get 100% perfect accuracy, which is what it seems you're after, is to poll 100% of the population. Again, statistically valid studies are done on populations of 3+ billion with less than 4x my sample size, and we're talking about a population of less than 1/5 that size with a well distributed sample size.
You can argue with me all you want but, until you've done your own study, you really don't know whether or not mine is valid.
Are you implying that I cherry-pick my contacts and only associate with people who upgrade their phones regularly? I suppose, next, you're going to claim I chose to do so, putting together this specific list of contacts over the course of nearly two decades (long before the iPhone even existed) specifically so I could point to those users in this conversation, right?
Get a clue.
Did you forget about the *representative* sample part?
Nope.
Are your "dozens" of friends representative of the cross section of the worldwide customer base of people who use iPhones?
First of all, I never said "friends", I said "every iPhone owner I know" and "people I know and communicate with frequently". That mostly includes colleagues and clients and, yes, that group consists of people of all races, genders, sexual orientations, income levels, and nationalities, both in the US and abroad, so I should think it does.
Save yourself some time and embarrassment, review my posting history and realize the following: If I open my mouth, I have a high degree of certainty that I am correct; but, I remain open to the idea that I am wrong, as well. If someone points out that I may be incorrect, I listen, I evaluate, and I thank them if it turns out that they've managed to correct me. It happens at least once every couple of months, more when I'm more active here; it's called learning and personal growth and you should try it.
I tend to agree with your thoughts on the very evilness of corporations. It's a well known fact that cream only rises to the top when there's no churn and, well, companies are constantly looking for reasons to get rid of their brightest and best, the free-thinkers that can actually do good for them, so there's plenty of churn. Add to that the fact that companies tend not to want to promote a the most productive workers to management (which means they also never make it to the higher ranks) because it would mean reducing the productivity of that worker's department; and those people are usually more productive because they have some insight that lets them work more efficiently or effectively. Those are the very people who could, elevated to a high enough position within the organization, spread their more effective work habits in the form of corporate policies and procedures intended to help everyone work better; instead, they promote the SJW that spends all day on Facebook and they end up with policies to match.
And yes, those who don’t or can’t pay hopefully will one day. Hollywood, ASCAP etc. shouldn’t make them enemies.
And those who currently do pay, as well. Hopefully, they'll continue to pay, but they're doing a damn fine job of making enemies out of us, as well!
Studies are done on a population of billions with only a few hundred participants with an acceptable margin of error (385 participants nets a margin of error of 5% and a confidence level of 95% in a population of 3 billion); when you're only considering millions, a sampling of even a couple dozen will result in a statistically acceptable margin of error and confidence level.
To my point, a sample size of only 97 grants us a 10% margin of error given your proposed population of 160 million; my sample size is easily larger than that and my margin of error is nearer to 9% with a confidence level of 95%. That's pretty damn statistically significant.
Don't take my word for it; the math is well known and relatively simple, but there are also sample size calculators that can do the work for you.
So why do you think your anecdotal evidence is relevant?
For a start, I know a lot of people with iPhones. Enough to be statistically relevant. We're not talking about my phone, we're talking about several dozen, if not over a hundred phones belonging to people I know and communicate with frequently enough to notice they've upgraded their phone. If I was simply talking about my or my wife's upgrade habits, or maybe a handful of my closest friend,s you might have a valid point; but we're not and you don't.
If most people upgrade their device yearly, why would Apple bother providing iOS updates for circa 2011 iPhone 4s?
Because, as I said in my previous post:
Some are behind the curve, upgrading to the from the 3yr old device to the 2yr old device because they're broke AF, but they all upgrade yearly.
Apple still sells the devices, therefore Apple still supports the devices.
Even iOS 10,when released will support every phone released since 2012.
Sorry, not gonna let this devolve into an Android vs iOS holy war. If you'd read my entire post before spouting off, you'd realize that I do, in fact, also use iOS. Just don't be surprised when the support stops at 4 years and 2012 devices don't get iOS 10; it would be a first if they did.
I’m sure many download things they never get time to watch, listen to or run, just because the occasion is there.
I know I did back when I was so broke that $20 for a DVD was just not in the budget. Yes, I get it, I had the $600 computer to download shit on; except that I didn't buy that $600 computer, it was a gift, and I'd have had to have bought a DVD player and TV, neither of which fit into a budget that already doesn't have $20 of leeway, if I didn't have the computer. In fact, I'm almost certain I still have much of that content burned to discs somewhere, long forgotten and still likely to never be viewed. I don't count as lost sales for any of it, because I never had the budget to potentially count as a sale when I downloaded it, and I have no interest in the content today. If I do have interest in any of that content at some point in the future, I'll go snag the blu-ray (or whatever format is current at that time) so I'm not stuck with the sub-DVD-quality shit I downloaded in my teen years. That is to say, I'm still a potential sale for each and every piece of media I downloaded all those years ago and, in fact, have converted quite a few sales in the form of DVD purchases once my budget expanded a bit.
Yes, some people who could pay do pirate. Hell, even some of them would pay if they couldn't pirate. But, here's the thing: you can't count people who can't pay as lost sales because you can't squeeze money out of them that they don't have. And you can't count people who would never pay as lost sales because even if their only option was to buy, they wouldn't; they would simply go without. Those are two classes of people you're just never going to get a cent from, period, and they need to be ignored; they're not your customers and they're not worth your time. This applies to any industry, by the way, not just those governed by copyright.
The only potential for growth is people who would give you money but aren't, and targeting them directly is often not the wisest move. Especially in the case of the entertainment industry, adding all these warnings and DRM restrictions to legitimately purchased media. That shit only affects your paying customers, whose asses you should be kissing royally. And pursuing violators? If your profits are truly and really threatened by them, sure; if they're selling your product out from under you and they actually have the means, as a result of that, to pay out more than it will cost to pursue them, go for it. But spending more than you can reasonably recover to sue Joe Bloggs for sharing a copy of an album or movie? That just drives prices up and profits down; it hurts everybody, the person or entity being sued, the studio that won't recover the money from that lawsuit, and the paying customers who suffer higher prices as a result.
Concentrate on kissing the asses of your customers, make them exceedingly happy to have forked over their hard-earned money in your direction. This means no onerous warnings (that don't apply to them, as they bought the damn thing) on the media they've legally purchased, no draconian restrictions that prevent them from using the media for whatever noncommercial purpose they see fit, no forced content (ads, previews, and other preroll shit -- go ahead and include them as extras, but don't make me watch them), and, you know what? People will buy it in droves.
Will the lack of warnings increase the incidence of piracy? No, pirates don't see that shit anyway. Will the lack of DRM increase the incidence of piracy? Fuck no, DRM is usually broken before the media is officially released anyway. Will profits decline if you can't charge as much for ads because they're not a forced pre-roll? Maybe; per-unit margins will be slimmer, but I'm betting it would be made up for in volume as more people bother to buy the shit in the