You missed the point of the contrast the Original Poster (OP) was trying to make, because you left out the rest of the paragraph:

“I won’t download a bootlegged copy from an Internet file-sharing program or order a black-market copy on eBay – that would be stealing. How do I know? Because movie disclaimers tell me so:”

The point the OP was trying to emphasize is, the movie badmouths Monsanto (in part) for trying to protect Monsanto’s intellectual property from farmers who would STEAL it. But then the movie producers include language intended to protect the PRODUCERS’ intellectual property from movie pirates hat would steal the movie.

My interpretation of this part of the OP’s post is, he was trying to show the hypocrisy of the movie.

Now, add in the fact that the post was written the week the movie came out, and the fact that it appears to be a slanted story that the OP might not want to financially support, and his statement seems pretty reasonable to me.

“If I choose to see it, I’ll purchase a ticket at the movie theater or maybe wait to order it on Netflix. “

From other posters sentiment on the blogs it is clear that the picture painted by the moviemakers lends a lot of sympathy to this cause – I believe that one poster commented that they believed all watching this segment would be happy to contribute to the legal costs incurred by the seed cleaner. However if you take the time to read the actual court decision on the trial (its on the blogs somewhere) it is hard to see how anybody could side with a guy who essentially tricked farmers into a legally dubious position by informing them that it was their legal right to replant patented material.

Monsanto’s point being that if someone were to infringe upon the moviemakers IP rights they would go ahead and take legal action, exactly as Monsanto did (although I’m not aware of any settlements in the movie industry where pirates or those associated with piracy of recorded material have their fines waived on the condition they not do it again)

Please provide proof, other than your fanatical ranting, that “greedy corporations, like Monsanto, have destroyed the American diet and our health.”

Americans have the broadest range of foods available to them than any other country. That some choose to either eat fatty hamburgers, greasy french fries, and gallons of “soft drinks,” or make destructive lifestyle choices such as drug/alcohol abuse, not living in a 2 parent home (the single most important factor in negative health impacts on children), and smoking, it is not the fault of Monsanto.

Whatever happened to personal responsibility in this country?

“The producers of this film want consumers to see the movie and spread the word about [WHAT IN THEIR OPINION IS] our failing food system.”

I fixed this for you.

Also, I’d like to not support the producers of this film monetarily. Can you make a copy of the movie and send it to me, so I can be “informed”. OR better yet, post it on the Internet, so everyone who can’t afford a movie ticket or doesn’t have access to a theatre can still be enlightened.

Make no mistake, the producers of this film are first and foremost interested in making a profit, just like Monsanto is. If their motives were REALLY as altruistic as you claim, they would have released it on the Internet themselves.

Also, the two previous posts were my logical reasoning on the subject, so please feel free to provide evidence as proof, via sources, that would show me thinking is flawed in this matter. Thanks.