We is, in the US, the federal government as directed by congress and the president. (In Canada where I actually live, s/congress/parliament/g and s/president/governor general (but only theoretically)/g).
> Regardless, that is not how IP works
This is exactly how IP laws work. More than that, in the US it's how they're constitutionally required to work - IP is defined as a time limited monopoly in the constitution and the federal government has no right to grant more than that. The current, "so long that it might as well be forever" copyright is spitting in the face of the US constitution.
> but can't really argue that if for those 30 years they have actively defended the IP and proliferation of it from other vendors/firms
I absolutely can. The purpose of IP is to encourage more things to eventually fall into the public domain by being published publicly. At some point, and I think 30 years is well past that point, it does more harm by preventing things from falling into the public domain than it does good by encouraging publishing.
Just because a company found a way to extract money from society, and are still doing so, doesn't mean we should allow them to do so forever.
When originally passed copyright (Statute of Anne in 1710) the term was 14 to 28 years, notably less than 30. As the world has only begun to change more rapidly since then, it's clear that it should have gotten shorter, not longer.