This simple "no you" reframing of the user being entitled misses that the two situations are totally asymmetric.

1. A user is "entitled" to use a product how they see fit without being harassed

2. A maker is "entitled" to wield the power of the state to go after and (potentially) cause the fining and even imprisonment of a user who is using it "the wrong way".

You might say that copyleft software licensing (which I agree with) is aligned with point 2, but I'd respond with the fact that copyleft primarily exists to subvert the system of copyright (point 2) from within, as it pertains to software. Even then, copyleft only restricts people who want to redistribute modified versions of the software, and explicitly not normal users.