I'm not sure why a lot of people are complaining and saying that it's affecting only the law-
abiding citizens who buy legit copies.
I would say that those warnings are there to educate and remind the public about how piracy can
seem so harmless but actually affects the industry by removing incentive to spend (or even earn
up or set aside cash) for the movies.
I understand though how those could be annoying since they keep you from movie time. Maybe they
should have a way to skip it for those who are well learned of the "rules" already. But sometimes, just sometimes, piraters can't be helped along with other low life scum. We have to sometimes think how desperate the industry can get especially since it's so plagues with this problem. I wouldn't be too happy if I were in their shoes.
It's not really so necessary to read the rest of my comment if you're absolutely against piracy already, but for the others I implore you to.
Some say that it's 'coz people can't afford them. Well that's BS! People can't afford a lot of
$#!+ but what makes movies any different? Just 'coz you can get away getting movies off the
Internet for free illegally?! BS!!! If you're complaining about high prices for luxuries then steer clear of them, just like any other $#!+ that msot would consider rediculously expensive (cars, watches, jewellry, wines, etc.)
For some of you who still have decency of not condoning stealing at all but feel that piracy
isn't stealing (a "victimless crime" as they say), here's an analogy. Read well.
Let's say there's an orange farmer who got his seasonal load of produce. Let's say 10,000
oranges. Now he's obviously gonna sell that and no matter how hard his family tries, they can't
eat all of those before they go bad. So let's say you come in and take some, let's say 50, of
those oranges. That's stealing right? Well, you can rationalize it using the fact that he and
his family are not gonna be able to finish it all right? But wait, wasn't he gonna sell them and
make some money from each and every orange he could sell? Since you took 50 oranges, he's now
lacking 50 oranges less in profits. You could actually say that you stole 50 oranges worth of
money from him. I know that he might not be able to sell all those 10,000 oranges in the first
place in case you want to use that as a reason to justify yourself, but bear with me for the
example's sake.
Now how does this work in with piracy (in case you haven't gotten it yet, and it's nothing to be
ashamed of, it happens a lot to me, yes, I'm not that smart, hehehe...). The farmer is analogous
to the movie company, the oranges to the movie (sorry for pointing out the obvious). People
rationalize piracy as not stealing from anyone since you're not tangibly taking something from
someone. Well, the point there is not affecting the other party in a negative way, and that's
the situation with taking oranges from the farmer that he wouldn't have consumed. But didn't we
show how that's stealing? There's a little difference with the movie maker's case though. Instead of not being able to sell those movie copies 'coz you "stole" them from him (which I doubt you can do since he'll most probably always have a copy), he'll have trouble selling copies to people who really want to see the movie 'coz they already have an illegal, non-paid for copy! Why would someone need buy something that they already have? (They could do this if they feel guilty or were planning to buy it later on to compensate in a way, which is commendable, but still not right since you should only enjoy what you've (or someone else as a gift to you) earned for.)
Same concept applies for any other piece of software, books, etc.
I hope at least one person read this through or had his point of view changed on this topic or even just woke up that voice inside your that tells you something's wrong (yes, your conscience).
I bet I'll get a large number of dislikes (which would only be indicated as a red "-20" but hey, it wouldn't be a waste of time if someone read it. Thanks for doing so BTW whoever you may be.