I am keenly interested in the subject and have done some legal reading, and I couldn't follow what was going on with a flashlight. The powers that be, decided they were tired of settling bankruptcy cases where the cause was someone renting a TV and being responsible for thousands of dollars of interest and well, usury. They now require these pillars of industry to, at least, disclose in reasonable language how you would be gouged. While not entirely effective due to the interpretation of reasonable language, it was a step forward. While I usually agree with the concept of caveat emptor, I think it reasonable to require that there be informed consent in all matters of license and contract.
Big business can be on their own as they typically have their own gaggle of lawyers.
I am certain this would be bitterly opposed as an informed consumer might tell the licensor to do something anatomically impossible with the product if the situation were clear to them. Even if this were attributed to the consumers uncanny and unusual ability to express a concept without 350 pages of dense legalese, I think the idea would be conveyed eventually, even to lawyers. Making it a campaign issue in upcoming elections would provoke dodging of the most artful kind and the introducers of the legislation might even be left twisting in the wind. No one can reasonably argue against that. Curt Wuollet is an avid Linux fan since it came on 50 floppies.