It is an interesting paradigm that when a work of art or industry is shared, it becomes more of a shared thing. I understand that is a nebulous concept for you.
Smart people have studied it, but you might have seen it in the “who shot first” debates.
I can understand that you want more of a black and white situation, but humans and those things and situations they create are messier than that.
In the end it is a product they are trying to get us - the consumers - to pay for. And that gives us the ability to pass some judgements in part or in whole.
If it were a singular item, created and then forgotten, (like a book in your false premise above) then one would get what they get. But when it is an ongoing venture that I am still being asked to pay for, then I get to say what I would like to buy there.
You want some tyrannical stroke to descend declaring that the consumer either totally accept the will of the producer and capitulate entirely or else leave entirely.
But the negotiation of ongoing purchases lets the the consumer have a say to some degree before any kid of absolute.
Your extreme, stockholmed worldview and its strange projection here just doesn’t reflect the physics of producer/consumer dynamics.
You are free to bend a knee and accept your fate as offered by your own defacto employees if you like. But some of us would like to continue to make our favorite pastime a place in which we want to invest time and money…
before it’s not.