Your comparing a life and death scenario to one regarding obtaining an entertainment product. It's a silly comparison and not terribly relevant to the topic under discussion.

But even within the logic of your analogy, you're confusing a moral argument with an argument centered around practical necessity. You could argue that stealing a life saving medicine is necessary, as you would die without it. But that still doesn't make the act of stealing it a moral one, even considering most people would sympathize and likely agree with your actions.

Related: poorer nations flout IP rights on some drugs, arguing that poorer people can't afford to pay the full price in order to get access to the drugs they need.

"....in developing countries, especially Africa, counterfeit products were commonly available to treat life-threatening conditions such as malaria, tuberculosis and HIV/Aids, it said."

http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/politics/Counterfeit_drugs_polar...

(Not a great article, there are better ones available to go into the issue further. But it does illustrate the point somewhat.)

The issue of the morality of "theft" becomes decidedly grey when lives are on the line, but using this argument doesn't help us tease out the pros and cons of the original argument - the morality of flouting copyright on movies. Using the example of medicine is an edge case where piracy/stealing/copyright infringement is concerned.