I think one big difference is right there in the word "company" that comes up in each of those examples (or the equivalent "site"). Companies are inherently profit-motivated, so every one of those examples is something done to make money, and we often draw a moral line at profiting from something.
Just starting from the idea of individuals rather than companies, it's easy to come up with a bunch of competing examples which are just as clear cut:
1. A person loans their copy of a new single-player video game to a friend.
2. A person goes to a gallery opening, which is funded by art sales. They look at the art, but it isn't that interesting to them, so they don't buy anything.
3. A new movie comes out. A person likes the story, but they already read the (public domain) book, so they skip it in the theater. A couple months later, a friend gets the DVD from the library and invites everyone over.
I won't belabor the point any more, I'm sure you get what I'm saying. This isn't to justify piracy necessarily, just to point out there's more going on here than pure cognitive dissonance; yes, there is a clear double standard around intellectual property, but it's because intellectual property is a complex issue to people.
I've been thinking about this issue recently... I've come to a conclusion: I don't support copyright in it's current form (at all, in any situation). I think it should be similar to the patent system - the knowledge/information is shared for free with all the world, but the commercialization of the idea is limited - you shouldn't be able to make money using copyrighted stuff, but private persons should be able to copy it at will. The alternative would be, as with the patent system, to never release your idea to the public, but keep it private instead.
Just starting from the idea of individuals rather than companies, it's easy to come up with a bunch of competing examples which are just as clear cut:
1. A person loans their copy of a new single-player video game to a friend.
2. A person goes to a gallery opening, which is funded by art sales. They look at the art, but it isn't that interesting to them, so they don't buy anything.
3. A new movie comes out. A person likes the story, but they already read the (public domain) book, so they skip it in the theater. A couple months later, a friend gets the DVD from the library and invites everyone over.
I won't belabor the point any more, I'm sure you get what I'm saying. This isn't to justify piracy necessarily, just to point out there's more going on here than pure cognitive dissonance; yes, there is a clear double standard around intellectual property, but it's because intellectual property is a complex issue to people.