Because that's not a solution. If someone breaks into your house and steals your TV it's still theft even if they leave behind the same amount of money that you originally paid for it. And the same should apply here.

Absolutely right, but it's not intended to be a solution, it's intended to make the dodgy the tax scheme more expensive, and hopefully no longer economically viable.

(Ideally in these situations all rights should also revert to the original creator).

The accountants would love that.

Consider what that would do to a company's balance sheet.

Every revocable "purchase" would become a perpetual liability which will almost never be collected.

What happens when the company goes bankrupt? Do all the former customers line up for their refunds as creditors?

That's kind of the point - shift the burden back to the vendor and make the cost of pulling the rug from under their customers more expensive.

Or re-engineer their product delivery mechanisms such that the customer can retain the product. Which is the desired outcome.