As an aside, if you use your laptop on work premises, no matter who ends up paying for it, consider also how it's insured and who is liable if something happens. Get the answer in writing (I can't stress this strongly enough). I had a situation where I used my own laptop and my own desktop at work, to avoid using the company's 10 year old relics. However, an office fire destroyed a lot of my equipment and despite being assured that it was definitely covered because I was using it for work purposes that turned out not to be the case for the hardware or any of the software / data on it. My (costly) mistake for not checking this carefully. So the advantage of you using company equipment is that they're liable for it. Whether that's worth the restrictions and conditions, if any, they place upon you using it is up to you to decide if it's an option.

Although I tend to agree, I don't think that all "pirates" would be pirates if a better legal alternative was available. One thing that a high level of piracy suggests is that it's offering a better service overall. So concentrate on improving the legal services, get rid of DRM, offer lossless downloads, reduces prices, offer discounts for buying albums over tracks, provide supplementary materials such as artwork, band profiles etc - anything to make people think that a legal purchase isn't such a ripoff. I'd never use the bigger online providers because they fail on all the above - the smaller operations do a much better job, and they get my business.

Bear in mind that the key factor here is the photographs. Whatever you want to "enhance" must be present in those photos as well, so a robbery on CCTV can only be enhanced in this way if simultaneous photos that include the perpetrator are available... in which case why not simply use a high-resolution still security system in the first place (easy: it costs too much to store the massive amounts of data). You also cannot enhance, say, people moving through the scene or changing / unpredictable elements in the scene unless someone else was there simultaneously taking high-resolution photos. Clearly this tech is intended for static scenes, or static objects within those scenes. While this is great tech and certainly has its uses, it also relies on your ability to take well-exposed, clear photographs of the same scene. If your video technical skills aren't up to proper exposure settings, what makes them think your photographic skills are going to compensate for that? I can see this being a plug-in for video editing suites, although knowing what the better ones already cost I can't see it being cheap!