Yup, and that's completely part of the legal framework of the USA. They take advantage just like every other IP-owning company, including basically every tech company in Silicon Valley.
But it is morally completely different. If you only "work with the hand you are dealt", you can claim some innocence if that means you do something slightly bad. If you actively work to expand a harmful framework you deserve rough treatment the other way.
Sort of like copyright holders that have actively lobbied to lengthen (retroactively) terms. They have no moral standing against being stripped (retroactively) of their copyrights.
If the law creates artificial scarcity to enable certain types of enterprise (like technology and media), it is creating an incentive for companies in those industries to exploit the legal situation as much as possible. Not only that, but publicly traded companies have a legal obligation to maximise profit for their shareholders[0]. Together these things mean that a successful company in these industries is one that tries to extend the artificial scarcity of their medium.
In other words, it's the law, not the companies, that are to blame. Change the law.
I think we agree that the law should be changed - the point I'm making is that companies that have lobbied are in no (moral) position to complain if the law is changed harshly in their disfavor.
