Copyright was originally set up to protect artistic works and not ideas or devices [1] [2]. Hardware in this context (PCBs etc.) is, I guess, considered an idea or device rather than a piece of artistic work. I think this is why we have the two systems of copyright and patents. Copyrights had the scope of artistic work and patents had the scope of engineering work.
I think one of the confusions is that we're so used to source code being copyrightable but that's a relatively recent invention when software came into mass use [3]. My opinion is that were it not for lobbying efforts to consider source code as artistic work, source code would probably be considered a "device" and not subject to copyright, just like hardware.
I don't want to put interpret Stallman's view incorrectly but I believe that this is the crux of his argument. If I interpret his view correctly, he believes software is more function than art, especially as it relates to fundamental infrastructure, and that copyright shouldn't be applied to such works or least should be restricted in the scope of application.
Also note that clothing is not copyrightable. This is why you see so many (legal) knock off clothes. The brand, or trademark, is something that's legally protected but not the designs themselves. I think the fashion industry is lobbying to try and change this and have their work protected by copyright [4].
I think one of the confusions is that we're so used to source code being copyrightable but that's a relatively recent invention when software came into mass use [3]. My opinion is that were it not for lobbying efforts to consider source code as artistic work, source code would probably be considered a "device" and not subject to copyright, just like hardware.
I don't want to put interpret Stallman's view incorrectly but I believe that this is the crux of his argument. If I interpret his view correctly, he believes software is more function than art, especially as it relates to fundamental infrastructure, and that copyright shouldn't be applied to such works or least should be restricted in the scope of application.
Also note that clothing is not copyrightable. This is why you see so many (legal) knock off clothes. The brand, or trademark, is something that's legally protected but not the designs themselves. I think the fashion industry is lobbying to try and change this and have their work protected by copyright [4].
IANAL
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright
[2] https://www.bitlaw.com/copyright/unprotected.html#ideas
[3] http://digital-law-online.info/lpdi1.0/treatise17.html
[4] https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/arts-post/post/fashion-...