That's mostly true, but I don't think it contradicts what I wrote (or at least, it doesn't contradict what I meant). Let's take an easy example, GCC. GCC is a GPL'd package, so Red Hat can't forbid you from uploading their GCC RPM to ftp.example.com and telling other people that's where to get it.
You're correct that this doesn't entitle you, a Red Hat subscriber with say a single machine subscription, to install the packages on a dozen machines and then get support on them all. But it's the subscription agreement you're violating, ie Red Hat are entitled to withdraw all support until you pay for the extra eleven machines, but they are not entitled to force you to stop using or distributing the software since that would exceed their rights as distributors under the GNU GPL.
This is an important reason why RHEL subscription is a better option for corporate entities than Microsoft's equivalent. The Microsoft subscriptions terminate your license to use on expiry of the subscription, but Red Hat don't (for most of the components of RHEL they can't even if they wanted to) do that. All that expires is the support contract. If you find another organisation willing to support your systems you can switch, with no penalty.