It doesn't - at least directly.

> You're producing it with the intention of it being used. Why does that suddenly become a problem when it gets used on a large scale?

You're setting up a cause and effect here that I never put forward. It isn't the use itself that suddenly becomes problematic.

The behavior is the issue. If everyone else pitches in and you don't, you come out ahead. It's the game theory behind cooperative behavior. If only you abstain the community isn't necessarily worse off, but if everyone abstains then it is (ie compared to if they all contributed). The optimal outcome for the group as a whole is for everyone to pitch in.

I do get where you're coming from. Legally speaking it's quite silly for someone investing money not to proactively prevent this from the beginning.

This isn't about the legality though. It's about social responsibilities. Entities with more resources - individuals, corporations, and even governments - are generally held to higher standards in the public eye. The legal system alone is not sufficient to make society a nice place to live.