I don't agree with money being the issue. While I think copyright is far too long, most of the stuff people complain about would be well within coverage even at the original 14 years. I don't think it's wrong for creators (including companies) to set prices as they wish.
What does bother me though and I do think is genuinely against the core public bargain of copyright is when material simply isn't available at all, or when copyright holders attempt to extract rights beyond copyright via layering DRM and such on top. The whole reason the public grants copyright is to encourage the creation and availability of quality IP. If IP isn't available at all in a given market for a reasonable period of time, IMO it should lose copyright protection. I'd support a separate "credit right", whereby for a long period of time after expiration of copyright anyone making derivative works would need to reasonably prominently credit the original with links, but copyright should never be about keeping things away from the public, that's literally the polar opposite of the point. I should be able to go buy a DRM-free FLAC or the like of music or DRM-free MKV of movies I'm interested and then use them on all of my devices, and be able to do that for any content made anywhere in the world (at least within Berne convention type countries, which is most of them). With books, original music and so on, the protection was the law and that was that. That's what it was all built around. Copyright holders should not be able to have it both ways, to get legal protection and then add tons of stuff beyond legal protection (and lobby to disgustingly and retroactively extend copyright as they frequently did).
So if I go to get something and it's "not available in your region" or exclusively via DRM'd streaming then yes, I'm open to copyright infringement. Even more so and without hesitation if it's just not published at all anymore. Copyright should never, EVER be about REMOVING IP from the public sphere. But if a game is on GOG and they want $60 or $90? Or hell if someone wanted to charge $500 for the Ultra Hyper DigiGigi Polkadot Edition? Then I'll respect that. If it seems worth it I'll get it, if it doesn't I won't, but "monetization" isn't wrong for luxury goods. There is lots of choice, including doing stuff ourselves more easily than ever. What I do think is absolutely wrong is not putting things up for honest direct sale.