> is that it
> suggests to me that it only covers "fair use or whatever the local law
> counterpart to it is". Referencing both 'fair use' and 'fair
dealing'
> but nothing else specifically, and the use of "equivalents", compels
> this interpretation, to me.
That was not the intent, but it having been pointed out, I see the
possible confusion, which is why I suggested the alternate language.
I have always thought of the audience for this clause as non-lawyers,
since (at least in theory) lawyers would know about the various
statutory protections, and that they would apply regardless.
I completely disagree. They aren't statutory "protections," they are
statutory defenses. I think it is a good plaintiff's argument that a
license can waive raising statutory defenses and software licenses
routinely do so, e.g., by prohibiting reverse engineering, which is a
fair use. I agree with CC that it is an important carve out to have.
Pam