There is more nuance to it than that. The copyright holder still owns whichever copies are made, whether or not they are made with their permission. One could argue that by making a duplicate, you have taken possession of a copy without consent from its owner.

That is an extremely recent construct largely promoted by the big media companies themselves. For the vast majority of human history, intellectual property was not a thing and works could be freely copied, modified, redistributed, etc and it was considered normal. When copyright first came into effect, it was for a fixed period that was relatively short, after which anyone could use the work however they wanted. That was the original intent of copyright, which was only to give artists an exclusive period to profit from their work without competition, not exclusive rights for all eternity. Disney was the one that lobbied for copyright terms to be extended, then extended again, then again, and critically, extended to include the life of the "person" that created it, but since corporations are also "persons" under the law and just so happen to not have bodies that can die, effectively corporate media is copyrighted forever.

Also, those media companies claim to be such big proponents of intellectual property protection, they would never, ever do the exact same goddamn thing to independent artists, with the only difference being that they actually profit from it when the vast majority of "piracy" is for personal use, and that they know for a fact that independent artists rarely have the resources or time to actually do anything about it, right? Riiiiiiight?

https://mashable.com/article/disney-art-stolen-tiki

https://insidethemagic.net/2023/12/disney-under-fire-for-allegedly-stealing-furry-fanart-ld1/

https://insidethemagic.net/2021/01/super-nintendo-world-stolen-art-ad1

https://techcrunch.com/2023/11/27/dbrand-is-suing-casetify-over-stolen-designs/

https://www.nintendolife.com/news/2021/01/looks_like_nintendo_accidentally_used_a_fan-made_mario_render_on_its_website

https://www.thegamer.com/microsoft-joins-sony-in-stealing-art-for-commercials/

https://gamerant.com/sony-stolen-art-playstation-network/

https://ganker.com/sega-stole-from-an-artist-608965/

If anything, shouldn't small independent artists get more protection under the law if copyright was really meant to benefit artists and safeguard the creative process like it claims it does? The FBI can arrest and jail you for pirating a movie, but when a corporation commits the same crime there isn't even a whiff of consequences. At this point we really ought to ask what the real purpose of copyright is after all the changes made to it and who it's actually meant to protect.

As for your other example about a copyright owner revoking access; this is completely subject to the terms of sale of that item. Without details of the license agreement it’s impossible to say if the terms were breached.

Gee, it almost sounds like the laws regarding what they can and can't put in those terms of sale are nowhere close to fair and were specifically written by the giant media holding companies to exclusively benefit them and screw over the consumer! Laws and regulations can't possibly be immoral and corrupt right?