Software that is replicated and produced for one specific purpose regardless of the laws and regulations surrounding its reproduction is different. Since the end product is exactly the same with no unique variation (or relatively very few variations of the core item in the purest terms for slights of deployment scenarios). This is true whether it comes on a physical medium or as software download only regardless of the laws that govern its perpetuation. Once the operating system is activated regardless of which type of license is used it does exactly the same thing with no variation from all the others activated with other types of licenses. All people want at the end of the is functioning OS with no imposed limitations of it full functionality.

It might be easier to conceptualize if we made the difference of context a little more clearer.

A physical piece of equipment that is designed to produce artistic work (whether the same or similar for composed pieces and unique productions or pieces each and every time) is very different. Since the physical piece of hardware/equipment that allows you to create the art/work is like an instrument that is potentially capable of producing infinite variation and different new pieces of work. Take the example of a musical instrument, you could potentially play the same work with slight variation each and every time or you could also use it to create new stuff. This is not the same a mass produced easy to instantly duplicate pieces of software regardless of whether it came on a physical medium or not and regardless of the activation process used in order to fully enable it or the laws that govern it that produces an end user acquirement experience that’s infinitely more complicated then it should be.

The software at the purest level if you were to compare it to music is like the recording/work produced from instruments regardless of what medium its available on. Even if the music  is recorded to a CD the actual product we're interested in is the music and not the CD that it came on. 

At the basic level the computer could potentially operate with any number of different kinds of operating systems installed.

At the basic level a custom made digital/analogue musical instrument could potentially produce an infinite number of original works. Plus the means of actually playing it and storing data (provided it doesn't actually use an advanced computer with a modern operating system installed to actually make it work) is not going to be easily taken.

If you wanted to take that example one step further. You could have a guitar or a piano. You store and process all the data in your head. Only you know how you want  to play something whether original or not. There is no computer or operating system that allows for instant discrete access which could also potentially allow for all your work to be taken in a matter of seconds. Also the main difference being that with a musical instrument the intensity and intonation will obviously change depending on how you're feeling (emotion) on any particular given day.

If you create something unique or an entire musical production/composition in one piece of software (possibly even a combination of several pieces of software with virtual patching) on a computer it could quite easily be taken in matter of seconds to then be reversed engineered much more quickly and easily. Imagine if you have thousands/millions of artists (I would have used professional but there are many artist that produce great works that never get a peek of the lime lights financial offerings) using this digital medium? 

This isn't sabotage. This is for informed decision making. This is exactly how we do things to a large extent where I acquired much of my cultural upbringing. Essentially regardless of the all the laws, technicalities and fast talk designed to preserve copyright, there are just some fundamental things that won't change regardless of the framework we put around it and just by sheer virtue of what certain "works" are whether artistic or none artistic. The reason I say "we" and try not to distinguish it between them and us regardless of which side of the "line" you're on? (or we think we’re on little realising we might be doing exactly the same thing but within a different perceived framework of ideology) Because human nature dictates that its all relative to where we are. Often many people used to be on one side of the line to then find themselves on the other side to varying degrees to then also maybe have to battle their own contradictions in the path they've walked as their position and status changed in which ever direction at different points in their lives. Predominantly its all relative to circumstance. If we were presented with everything we after wanted to then be torn between sides just by sheer virtue of where we got, would we be weak for still having a social conscience when it would be far easier just to say "fuck you all" in knowing that you could live it up exactly how you wanted? I guess that’s only for you as an individual to decide. Then again there are many that will discover that even when appeasing their social conscience its still never enough as people just want more even when you can't do it for various complex reasons (very rarely not complex) for you then to be vilified.  Often even when you can actually do it there are even additional unforeseen factors to blight an act that was done with the best of intention to benefit others for it to all turn to shit and have a disastrous unforeseen outcome. When that happens people then need someone to blame.