via IPWar's - EFF on Common Terms in Shrinkwrap/Clickwrap/Browsewrap Licenses

UPDATE: I've corrected this post, which used to say that the Fair Use Issues Paper did not deal with the Copyright and Contract CLRC report. I was wrong; it is mentioned and described, albeit non-commitally (noting that 'the Government is considering the CLRC's report').

Thanks Warwick Rothnie for this link: the EFF has a new paper on "EULAs" - End User License Agreements - those contracts used particularly by software companies to govern the use of software. The paper outlines common terms found in such licenses, and why they harm consumers.

Terms outlined in the paper include terms:

• that forbid public criticism of software, or the revealing of benchmark tests of the software to others;
• that allow the software company to force updates on the end user (eg, a term like 'You acknowledge and agree that in order to protect the integrity of certain third party content, Pinnacle and/or its licensors may provide for Software security related updates that will be automatically downloaded and installed on your computer. Such security related updates may impair the Software (and any other software on your computer which specifically depends on the Software) including disabling your ability to copy and/or play ‘secure' content, i.e. content protected by digital rights management';)
• that forbid reverse engineering (note - this has no effect in Australia as a result of a combination of s 47D and 47H);
• that forbid the use of others' software;
• that allow the licensor to update, change, modify etc the Agreement, and to impose new rules, even without notice;
• warranty disclaimers

It's an interesting read.

As Rothnie notes, the CLRC's Copyright and Contract Report - that recommended making some exceptions in copyright law impervious to contractual limitation, is currently mouldering in the halls of the government somewhere.

Indeed, in the current review of Copyright Exceptions, it is a notable absence from the Issues Paper (the only mention of the report I could find was an acknowledgement that the table in Attachment A is a revised version of a table from the Copyright and Contract report!). it is not clear how the government intends to deal with this issue, and whether it forms part of the Review as such.