If always found that the idea that software falls under copyright (which in all countries have the longest protection e.g. 50 years) instead of more appropriate equivalents such as industrial design a bit ridiculous and intellectually irresponsible in the context of legal philosophy.
Something that's been bugging me for decades. An (incorrect, to my opinion) perspective that software should receive higher degrees of intellectual property protection due to it's volatile nature of being pirated. Ignoring the fact that the very technology used is, by nature used for duplication...and pretend to act as if piracy or any form of unauthorized duplication is a permanent business risk.
Hardware receives lesser intellectual property protection, usually in the form of industrial design (usually 15 years, country depending), patent or trade secret. The object itself is not protected by intellectual property rights, but the idea. Stealing a physical object is of course already regulated.
Stealing a non-physical object however, i.e. software is problematic. You don't 'steal' software, as the traditional sense of something being stolen is 'A is moved to B'. Even electricity can be stolen, but not software. Stealing in regards to software usually refers to unauthorized duplication.
Problem is, there seems to be an odd exception and confusion when it comes to software. Software usually receives the longest form of intellectual property protection and yet compared to others it is also the quickest to become obsolete...and yet the later fact is almost always ignored when promulgating its regulation. Software isn't a physical object and yet it's not just an idea either.
Now they say that we can't alter, reverse engineer or whatever, the software we just purchased. That we have to re-purchase DLC's if the one we have is screwed and yet its duplication itself costs next to nothing for the manufacturer.
Suddenly it's possible to 'purchase' and yet not 'own'. We don't own the authorized duplication. Somewhere along the line, software has somehow obtained more protection than any single private object in legal history. The only other object I remember that receives similar protection is state-issued currency.
Have I ever mentioned that common sense isn't a universal trait? :p
Nevermind me. It's not that the average Joe actually thinks nor cares about this kinda stuff.