DADVSI

DADVSI is the abbreviation for " Droit d' auteur et droits dans la société de l' voisins information " and refers to a French draft law on the reform of copyright. More specifically, it is about the implementation of Directive No. 29 of the European Union in 2001, which establishes a framework for copyright in the Member States.

The template DADVSI was filed in November 2003 in the National Assembly office. The discussion on the subject was finally scheduled for December 20 to 22, 2005.

A few hours before the debate began in Parliament, whose rooms were used by Virgin, to campaign for music downloads and download to distribute vouchers to the value of 9.99 euros to the deputies.

The law has been criticized by the " Free Software Foundation France", as it criminalizing software that copyrighted content is used when playing, copying and distribution.

• 5.1 The decision
• 5.2 The continuation
• 5.3 The disappearance of the culture flat rate
• 5.4 connection with the contracts between publishers and Ministry of Education

• 6.1 The amendment Vivendi Universal in the National Assembly
• 6.2 The amendment Vivendi Universal in the Senate
• 6.3 The amendment Vivendi Universal in the Conciliation Committee
• 6.4 Current Version

• 7.1 The interoperability clause of the National Assembly
• 7.2 Apple and interoperability clause

• 9.1 DADVSI bugged?

Personalities, political parties and

• UMP: Essentially, the UMP supported the draft, but there were also some dissenters. Among the dissenters are particularly worth mentioning Richard Cazenave and Bernard Carayon, which are mentioned more often in the course, as well as Christine Boutin and Alain Suguenot that favored the culture flat rate.
• UDF: The UDF could still considerable need for improvement and has repeatedly protested against the urgency procedure. The most actively for the UDF François Bayrou and Jean Dionis du Séjour. Currently (12th legislature ) is the UDF coalition partner of the UMP. The UDF wanted to finally implement the directive in 2001, for which the deadline was actually December 31, 2002, as it later but showed not really any price.
• PS, CR, Green: These parties took action against the draft with all its available resources. Particularly active in the debate were Christian Paul, Patrick Bloche, Didier Mathus, Didier Migaud, Frédéric Dutoit, Martine Billard.
• Renaud Donnedieu de Vabres 's Minister of Culture and Communication in the legislature, in which the template was discussed in Parliament. But he has let them neither written nor write.
• Jean -Jacques Aillagon, predecessor of Renaud Donnedieu de Vabres, the template DADVSI in 2003 in the National Assembly submitted. It must be said, therefore, that Renaud Donnedieu de Vabres defended the bill by Jean Jacques Aillagon.

The method of urgency

The government chose the urgency procedure in which only one reading is provided in the House and Senate, instead of the usual two readings. There are two possible motives: either the implementation of a bill is urgent, or the government wants to avoid a second reading.

However, a second reading, the urgency be withdrawn at any time by the government, or in spite of urgency to be organized. Votes both from the opposition and from the UDF (eg François Bayrou ) accused the government of having chosen the date and the urgency intentionally to push through the template in the heave-ho procedure, without a lot of debate in the country arises.

Special elements

This section explains some unique plans that were presented.

La Riposte graduée - the stepped Reciprocate of fire

The amendments, which should include this mechanism in the draft, were not approved by the National Assembly. The section is only to show what goals Renaud Donnedieu de Vabres pursued by this bill.

The amendment 228 should allow the following mechanism:

• The first violation is punishable only with an e- mail that indicates a user that he has committed a violation
• The second violation is punishable by a letter that indicates a user on the second violation
• The third violation is punishable by up to three years in prison and 300,000 euro fine.

The Government filed this amendment one on the evening of December 20th, that already after the debate had begun. The " Commission des lois " discussed the amendment on 21 December at 21:00 clock and adopted the following change before: The initial version of the amendment 228 saw before, presupposing no intention of infringement, but saw before, every Internet user in accordance with the " Riposte graduée " to keep track of who has accidentally committed due to a lack of diligence in violation, so for example, a user who buys music online, in actual belief, the offer is legal.

If a violation with an Internet connection is established, is the owner of the internet connection, according to this proposal, under suspicion and is guilty unless he can prove his innocence.

In order to relieve the courts, the imposition of fines of an independent authority should be delegated. For this, certain conditions should be staked within which this independent authority should move.

The term " Riposte graduée ", or " stepped Reciprocate the Fire", was originally chosen by Renaud Donnedieu de Vabes when he mentioned this mechanism for the first time before the start of the debate, and maintained by the opposition. However, used Renaud Donnedieu de Vabres, just as the UMP, in the further course of the term " Réponse graduée ", ie "graduated response " to refer to this mechanism. He himself used the term " Riposte graduée " again on June 7, 2006, when Jean Dionis du Séjour (UDF ) in the context of the questions asked to the government after a second reading to this bill.

It is unclear whether this mechanism should also be applied to violations of Article 13, so as to play a DVD on Linux, applied, or whether this playing a DVD should be occupied immediately with 3 years in prison and 300,000 euro fine.

Jean Dionis du Séjour (UDF) regretted in his explanation of vote on 30 June that the concept of Riposte graduée, after the first violation should only be answered by e -mail, indicating the offense would have to be maintained even if many of the other proposed mechanisms, such as the internet privacy police, were not acceptable.

Article 13 and the prohibition of open source DVD players

The Article was not approved by the lower house and is only to show what goals Renaud Donnedieu de Vabres pursued by this bill.

If the template was as the Minister of Culture Renaud Donnedieu de Vabres she asked in December 2005 to discuss, unchanged approved by Parliament, it would be a prison sentence of 3 years and a fine of 300,000 euros on playing a DVD under Linux, as well as on the production, distribution, or hosting an open source DVD player.

Paragraph 1 of Article 13 should prohibit to attack technological protection measures in any way, paragraph 2 of Article 13 should be forbidden to create a device or import that allows the circumvention of technological protection measures or facilitated, paragraph 3 should provide such a device ban. Violations of the prohibitions should be punished as " fake," and are thus punished by the above-mentioned penalty of three years imprisonment and 300,000 euros.

Because the source code free DVD playback programs such as VLC media player for playing CSS encrypted DVDs decrypts the data, and the source code could be easily manipulated so that the decrypted data is diverted to a file, the spreading of the source code would be a program which reproduces DVDs, so under paragraph 2 of Article 13 shall apply as " fake," the use of such a program would be applicable under paragraph 1 as a forgery, the host referred to in paragraph 3 as a forgery.

Renaud Donnedieu de Vabres contested this interpretation during the debate, but did not explain why he thought they were wrong.

The culture flat rate

The idea to allow for a monthly fee to download copyrighted works, has been referred to as " La license global ", usually translated as culture flat rate. There was much confusion about the culture flat rate around, this is explained in a separate section.

Initiating the debate

That the 3 days that were scheduled for debate, might not be sufficient time was quite clear: the opposition filed three motions of a procédure, so requests for rejecting a design that will be treated, even before the discussion of each article begins. For that alone for several hours were needed. These were:

• Exception d' irrecevabilité: This explains the one who defends why the design is obviously unconstitutional and / or violating human rights
• Question préalable: This explains the one who defends it, why it is pointless to discuss a draft
• Renvoi s commission: This explains the one who defends why the design is not yet ripe and the Commission, which has " done wrong " it should get back shuffle mode. The UDF joined here at the opposition.

All three motions of procédure were rejected by the majority of the National Assembly. In the Senate, a further question was préalable filed, in the discussion of the compromise proposal made by the Conciliation Committee on 30 June, the opposition filed an exception d' irrecevabilité again and a question préalable (see here)

The UDF stated that they feel both the urgency procedure for this design and the choice of the appointment as very peculiar, but still wanted to start the debate last. Therefore, the UDF voting against the exception d' irrecevabilité and against the question préalable. When renvoi en commission, the UDF joined the opposition, since the amendment had since been filed and the UDF changed her mind about continuing the debate then.

The Cultural Flatrate, whose disappearance and contracts

The sales of CDs in the U.S. Likewise, had fallen after years of repressive policies by 40 %, we must therefore determine the complete failure of this policy.

The decision

The proposal to allow the downloading of copyrighted works for a monthly fee, was initially approved by the House by 30 votes and 28 votes against and received so in the Article 1 of the template.

With the decision of the culture flat rate, it was now finally completely impossible to decide the entire document until the morning of 23 December, as the culture flat rate for the government even after this voting result was not at issue. Accordingly, the debate on the night of 22 to 23 December was postponed.

The continuation

The debate was continued until March 7. The justification of Renaud Donnedieu de Vabres the urgency procedure will be used, as the implementation of the bill was urgent, lost with this long delay of credibility.

Since the demonstrations against the CPE were announced reinforcement from 7 March, DADVSI played in the French press in March a very subordinate role.

The disappearance of the culture flat rate

To get rid of the culture flat rate, the government decided on the evening of March 6, the Article 1 of the National Assembly now changed to retire, and submitted an amendment, which should add to the template a new alternative in Article 1.

An amendment must refer to an article. The amendment 272, which is at issue here should insert an " additional article after article 1" in the template. Since the article 1 was withdrawn, however, mainly the opposition was interested in it as an amendment may add an additional article after an article that does not exist.

Although it is intended that once a retracted article can not be set again, the government put the old Article 1 on the evening of March 8 again, after she was According to unofficial information, constitutionnel warned by a member of the Conseil, that the retraction of Article 1 under the circumstances could not pass the censorship of the Constitutional Council. Renaud Donnedieu de Vabres said that the first retracted article I re-opened to ensure absolute clarity prevails among all participants.

Patrick Bloche declared his astonishment to find, first, that the government has removed the article 1 and the culture flat rate from the bill, and to learn a day later that the government intends to discuss the Article 1 and the culture flat again. He then explained further that he has a problem with this understanding to understand what the government really thinks.

The chairman of the meeting at that time spoke of an innovative approach by the government.

Henri Emmanuelli caused protests when he Renaud Donnedieu de Vabres said the following: We are at the end, I also stay there. You, Minister, withdrew the article. Considering how ridiculous you make the National Assembly, and considering how ridiculous you make the government, I wonder if the problem rather would not withdraw the minister!

On March 16, published Ratiatum a message to the effect that the Chairman of the Assembly should have said national, Jean- Louis Debré about Renaud Donnedieu de Vabres: [ He is ] a zero, which has got us in the shit and us, since has the beginning [ of the debate ], plunged into an adventure.

This coming and going of Article 1 and the culture flat-rate has been the subject of an appeal to the Constitutional Council, which had to decide whether the principle of clarity and seriousness of the parliamentary debate has been violated. He decided on 27 July that, contrary to what the government, the withdrawal of an already altered by Parliament article was unconstitutional, but that the timely reintroduction of Article 1 have corrected this error.

Connection with the contracts between publishers and Ministry of Education

The Assemblée nationale learned this just happen already on March 8, when the deputies read newsflashes in a session break.

While the debate about some Sous- Amendements to amendment 272, whose aim was to include 272 additional rights for libraries and educational institutions in the amendment, Renaud Donnedieu de Vabres press repeatedly his distaste for such rights and drew attention to contracts that allegedly already on December 20 had been signed. He had, however, so far refused to show the contracts, pursuant to which he wanted to achieve the rejection of the exceptions.

When he referred again to the contracts and insisted for the umpteenth time, they would just copied demanded François Bayrou (UDF) a brief break to get selbige and read.

The deputies then read to agency reports, because the copies were not ready and were told here that Renaud Donnedieu de Vabres wanted to put up for discussion the withdrawn item 1 again. François Bayrou declared that the National Assembly, such behavior could no longer tolerate, and that the deputies from all ranks, whatever may be their opinion on copyright, would refuse to play along in this theater.

As it turned out later, Renaud Donnedieu de Vabres actually trying to keep the contracts as long as possible secret, to include additional rights for libraries and educational institutions law in the hope that Parliament would be on a contract basis who does not know it, refuse.

Patrick Bloche threw Renaud Donnedieu de Vabres before he had the National Assembly led around by the nose.

The amendment Vivendi Universal

The most famous amendment is the amendment 150, which is called ' amendment Vivendi Universal' received, which was used by the opposition during the public sessions of the debate. In the Senate, he was also used by the UDF. The name comes from the fact that the proposal dates for this clause of Vivendi Universal.

The clause, as it was initially filed saw before, that is occupied by 3 years in prison and 300,000 euro fine, who knowingly

The amendment Vivendi Universal in the National Assembly

The clause was first softened by the National Assembly:

• Sous- amendment device 363 replaced by software
• Sous- amendment 364 added 3 °, and concluded from software that serves the research, the joint work or the exchange of files or objects that are not remunerated by copyright. This Sous- amendment is also referred to by the two MPs who supported especially for this, as a sous amendment Carayon / Cazenave by Bernard Carayon and Richard Cazenave.

However, the amendment Vivendi Universal was, upon the request of Christian Vanneste, aggravated in some way:

• Sous- 398 amendment also threatens the creation of such a device with 3 years in prison and 300,000 euro fine
• Sous- amendment 399 threatened, captured in 1 ° and 2 ° offenses in the form of an advertisement.

Were rejected:

• Sous- amendment 324, whose aim was to capture only software that is exclusively found in the 1 ° punishable actions
• Sous- amendment 376, which the amendment Vivendi Universal should be limited to software that is used commercially

Renaud Donnedieu de Vabres expressed his approval for the Sous- Amendements 363, 364, 398 and 399 of and approved the amendment to 150, only on the condition that they would be approved by the National Assembly.

François Bayrou (UDF ) stated that it could be very difficult to find a program that is not protected by 3 °. He further stated that there doing this clause completely impossible to apply the amendment 150 to any software, and regretted that the Assembly would make national moving an amendment, which arouses concern among all Members, totally ineffective by a Sous- amendment, only to certain interest groups to do a favor, rather than simply to vote against the amendment itself. He feared that an article of this nature could be unconstitutional.

A few minutes after this amendment was approved by 150 of the National Assembly, Renaud Donnedieu de Vabres received an additional nickname on the forum by Framasoft: Renaud Donnedieu de Vabres de Vivendi. The deputies of the Socialist Didier Mathus explained Renaud Donnedieu de Vabres the next morning that he had received the new nickname.

During the debate in the National Assembly has the name " Vivendi " mentioned on 15 and 16 March total of at least 30 times.

The amendment Vivendi Universal in the Senate

In May 2006, the Senate removed the changes that had the Sous- Amendements 363 and 364 made ​​to the amendment Vivendi Universal ( amendment 22). Renaud Donnedieu de Vabres expressed his support for this proposal, which retained the defusing that the Assembly had made ​​national, again removed, and the aggravations.

The following applications were rejected by the Senate:

• Amendment 159 saw the right to delete, as inserted by the amendment to Article 12 of Vivendi Universal
• Amendment 55 saw before, apparently to be replaced by explicitly to move from a subjective to an objective criterion
• Amendment 42 (withdrawn) and amendment 214 saw to substitute incitement for use by incitement to unlawful use. The rubber stamping this Amendements for example, would prevent download of the proposal, an image of a Linux distribution with the help of a detected by 1 ° program, 3 years in prison and 300,000 euro fine imposed. Renaud Donnedieu de Vabres explicitly stated that he did not want this.

The amendment Vivendi Universal in the Conciliation Committee

The Mediation Committee noted the version restores, the Assembly had approved national in March, so the Sous- Amendements 363/364 that were present initially not in the amendment Vivendi Universal, were then inserted with the consent of Renaud Donnedieu de Vabres and thereafter with the consent were removed by Renaud Donnedieu de Vabres again.

Current Version

The clause provides that is occupied by 3 years in prison and 300,000 euro fine, who knowingly

Note: The following 3 °

• 3 ° This article does not apply to software that serves the research, the joint work or the exchange of files that are not subject to compensation by copyright.

Was declared by the Constitutional Council as unconstitutional because it was too vague.

Interoperability

The National Assembly had the Article 7 of the template modified so that he guaranteed interoperability.

The interoperability clause of the National Assembly

Article 7 saw this before, that

• A technological protection measure interoperability must not prevent
• Anyone who wishes to provide interoperability, is allowed to make a decompilation to understand the functioning and to provide interoperability
• Anyone who wishes to provide interoperability, is entitled to the return of the specification of a safeguard measure and to report only the pure material costs in the publication (eg postage, cost of copying )
• The publication of the source code of software that is interoperable with a technical protection measure and can be used as protected files only legal, can not be prohibited

The also modified Article 13 allowed in addition to circumvent technological protection measures to achieve interoperability. The Senate rejected a motion to remove this exception. So now it is also in the final version.

The Senate removed in May from Article 7 everything interoperability guaranteed, and chose instead a commission to process applications for issuance of such a specification, and this grant or to refuse this and may define a " reasonable compensation " for the publication. The Conciliation Committee decided yet additional requirements for the production of interoperability.

Apple and the interoperability clause

Apple called this clause as a state-sponsored piracy and announced to withdraw from France, if the clause would survive the legislative process.

In the context of this article, in particular Apple's claim that it would be either state-sponsored piracy, when consumers have the right to play legally purchased music, a lot of rumors were brought into the world that could give the wrong impression of the interoperability clause. It has even been interpreted into, Apple must, if this clause would end up in the final act, offering music in different formats or in formats that work on all players, or Apple would have to make sure that the music that Apple sells, works on different players.

For such interpretations of the clause, there is no basis whatsoever. The clause would require Apple just like every other provider of DRM systems to issue the necessary information to anyone who wants to achieve even that its software or hardware, these files can play, they would allow everyone the same information by reverse engineering to obtain, however, it would oblige in any event, Apple or anybody else to support themselves competing formats in its playback devices or its playback software or devices to make the competition interoperable with their own selling music.

The right to private copying null

The rapporteur ( " Le Rapporteur ") of the National Assembly for this bill, Christian Vanneste, repeatedly stressed that this design does not threatens the private copying and pointed out that the Commission has the proposed lois an amendment, which guaranteed the private copy. This amendment 30 said that, for technical measures to introduce a limitation of the number of copies, this number must be at least one if the plant was purchased legally.

As the amendment 30 should be put to the vote, Christian Vanneste selbiges pulled back, on the grounds that he did not want to write into law, a private copy of a legally purchased work is guaranteed. He continued to insist that the private copy is guaranteed without this amendment. From this, the opposition initiated from the interpretation that at least null private copies are guaranteed.

This view was confirmed by the Senate in May 2006, when an identical amendment was rejected.

DRM versus spyware and viruses

The draft of the Senate, provided that it is illegal to install any type of spyware in a protective mechanism without prior authorization from the CNIL. This he decided with the Sous- amendment 284, which was adopted against the will of Renaud Donnedieu de Vabres. Accordingly, the mediation committee remote selbiges at its meeting on 22 June.

Articles 13 and 14 prohibit knowingly circumvent a protection mechanism to alter or neutralize. Also forbid them to create devices, distribute or propose to import that are specifically intended. However, some exceptions apply. It is permissible to circumvent a protection mechanism or neutralize, if

• This serves to Research
• This is done for purposes of security of a system.

The making of a copy of a repair Un - CD to play it in a player that can not read the original, or playing a DVD under Linux using an open-source DVD player like VLC are therefore no longer be criminalized.

Likewise, a safe mechanism as the Sony Rootkit be neutralized, which camouflages all files whose name begins with $ sys $, and thus to each virus, the author knew that provides a hiding place. The Sony rootkit thereby jeopardizing the security of a system and thus falls within the exceptions.

The exception originally contained, which allowed to circumvent a technological protection measure, if this is the interoperability has been declared due to a lack of definition of interoperability on 27 July as unconstitutional.

DADVSI bugged?

In an article published on Agoravox article, the author pointed to a possibly unintended drafting error, due to its DADVSI would continue to allow private copying in many cases, even if the goal of the bill was to prevent private copying substantially.

In the French copyright law effective technological protection measures since the entry into force of DADVSI legally protected, as well, but only if the protection measure prevents Germany in actions that were not allowed by the rights holders. Bypasses an effective technological protection measure in order to perform an action can, which was anyway allowed by the rights holders, the prohibitions do not apply - is based on this assumption the article.

Bypassing an effective technological protection measure in order to make a private copy can therefore only punishable if the rights holders, including including the author, a private copy of the work do not permit ( permit is not to be confused etc. want to ), so if they ban them.

The article L.122 - 5, paragraph 2 ° of the Law on Intellectual Property ( " Code de la Intellectual Property " ) states, however, that an author may make copies or reproductions can not ban for private and not shared.

If courts follow this interpretation, it would result that bypassing an effective technological protection measure for the purpose of preparing a private copy can not in principle fall under the prohibition of circumvention. There is, however, provide guidance only after the first judgments.

Punish

The creation of software that serves obviously, make protected works accessible illegally to the public, as well as incitement to (legal as well as illegal) use of such software will be punished by the amendment Vivendi Universal with 3 years in prison and 300,000 euro fine. Except for software that serves the research, the joint work or the exchange of files that are not subject to compensation by copyright.

The bypass a protection mechanism is covered with 3750 Euros, with the exceptions listed under DRM versus spyware and viruses. The exceptions were retained by the Conciliation Committee.

An act illegal downloading should be according to current plans is 38 euros, if no upload is included, and 150 Euros, if upload is included. As an "act " however, this has not been defined so far is therefore unclear, such as the illegal download an album would be sanctioned: An act for the album or an act per item? Renaud Donnedieu de Vabres refused repeatedly to answer this question.

The Constitutional Council declared it unconstitutional to distinguish Upload offense under the "Tool" (peer -to-peer, other ), which is this is not compatible with the principle of equality before the criminal law. Since the 150 - euro penalty should only apply to peer -to-peer, applies for the upload by the censorship of the Constitutional Council, the old penalty of falsification, ie € 300,000 and three years ' imprisonment.

Mediation Committee in June 2006 and resistance against

On 15 June 2006, the Conciliation Committee ( "Commission Mixte Paritaire ", " CMP" ) was officially announced by the Prime Minister Dominique de Villepin. He was Slated for June 22. Usually this happens when after two readings still exist in both chambers of parliament differences between the two chambers of the last sanctioned texts. Due to the urgency procedure however, this is possible after one reading.

Resistance to its convening

Resistance to this approach, there was on all sides, even from the two government parties UMP and UDF:

• The opposition continually demanded the withdrawal of the entire template, but at least the waiver of the urgency procedure
• During the debate in March in the National Assembly demanded the UDF multiple times to waive the urgency procedure
• Published on June 1, Hervé Morin (UDF), the official call to organize a second reading
• On June 7, during the questions to the government, Jean Dionis du Séjour (UDF) asked as to whether the emergency would be lifted and called Renaud Donnedieu de Vabres on to let Parliament do its job.
• June 14 Richard Cazenave and Bernard Carayon published (UMP ) a statement in which they brought to express that the modifications had made ​​the Senate to be extensive to justify a mediation committee held a second reading. They said the election that had taken the Senate, was no longer a balance between the rights of authors and the rights of consumers. In particular, they mentioned removing the interoperability clause that guaranteed interoperability, and the introduction of a negotiation possibility for interoperability
• The restoration of the old amendment Vivendi Universal
• The introduction of the filtering of the Internet, where neither the funding nor the integration of foreign artists was clear
• The fact that the Senate provides that each holder of a wireless connection for the acts of a " connection Pirates" is responsible, who used this wireless connection abusive

• Was positively evaluate that the principle will return after a technological protection measure should not prevent the effective implementation of interoperability
• Is positive as well as the return of the principle that the necessary information is provided in an open standard available
• Getting the information that is needed to achieve interoperability should, subject to any conditions.
• Apart from the postage cost should be no costs can be calculated
• That the applicant must guarantee the effectiveness of a technological protection measure is worded disproportionate and out of focus
• It was unacceptable that the publication of the source code of a program, which is interoperable with protected files could be banned because it attacking the rights of authors of free software
• The adoption of the amendment Vivendi Universal of National Assembly, so except for research, collaborative work and legal file sharing, they evaluate positively
• Of Article 14 ter A of the Senate return the burden of proof for victims of Internet piracy what is dangerous
• Of Article 14 quater could be interpreted abusive (a program is used on a commercial scale copyright infringement, the manufacturer may be forced to incorporate countermeasures )

Expiration

On 22 June, the Conciliation Committee did. None of the 12 members of the UMP, who had signed the letter to Bernard Accoyer was allowed to participate. Means 55 amendments was a "common version " in which national and then the Senate was submitted on 30 June, the Assemblée.

The representatives of the opposition ( Christian Paul, Patrick Bloche, Serge Lagauche, David Assouligne, Marie- Christine Blandin ) was refused a meeting recess, whose aim would have been to read the applications and so to decide for which and against which it votes wanted.

Shortly after ...

On June 23, Richard Cazenave published a letter by expressing his dissatisfaction with the final version. Had he still for the March version (the one with the far-reaching interoperability clause) voted, so he announced to vote against the Conciliation Committee.

Bernard Carayon published along with Michel Rocard, a letter similar tenor. This was the first public statement against DADVSI, which was shared by a member of the UMP and a socialist. The two were here very clearly, also criticized the artificial segmentation of the market by region codes and asked why a DVD in China can be sold for $ 1.50, while in Europe, not, and whether DVDs are sold in China as a loss.

Date selection and presentation of the compromise before both houses

On 30 June, the elaborate compromise was laid before both Houses of Parliament. The date was not earlier than June 27, firmly. The choice of date was a bit strange, since the Parliament actually does not work Friday. The deputies are on Fridays, as well as Mondays, in their constituencies, or have other appointments.

Richard Cazenave, Alain Suguenot, Yves Bur and Bernard Carayon, who had all signed the letter to her faction leader, for months had other appointments that day. So had Richard Cazenave chairing a meeting of a committee, whose president is himself, and in which the appointment was for 6 months. Yves Bur had the National Assembly representing the European Parliament, Bernard Carayon had to also participate in another conference.

The only one of the 12 who were able to attend that day, Nicolas Dupont- Aignan was. According to the rules of the National Assembly may be a Member who is absent, the voice of another of the same party connect, but anyone can wear only a "Connection voice". Alain Suguenot joined the dissenting voice of Nicolas Dupont- Aignan, unfortunately, the debate dragged on for so long that Nicolas Dupont- Aignan could not stay. The UMP could thus claim their deputies had decided the text conformity.

In the debate, the opposition take every opportunity to once again demonstrate the dangers of the law, François Bayrou (UDF ) completed the in many aspects differ. The opposition ranged about how back in December before the first reading, an exception d' irrecevabilité ( defended by Patrick Bloche ) and a question préalable ( defended by Martine Billard ) a.

François Bayrou joined in the vote on the exception d' irrecevabilité the opposition.

Complaint in front of the Constitutional Council

The Socialist Party filed a complaint against the law, both substantive and procedural grounds, submit front Constitutional Council. Even some members of other party signed the complaint:

• UDF François Bayrou, Hervé Morin
• Green: Noël Mamère, Martine Billard, Yves Cochet
• CR: André Chassaigne, Frédéric Dutoit, Jacqueline Fraysse, Jean -Pierre Brard

Formally, the complaint goes to the comings and goings of Article 1, the government had withdrawn after the Assembly had adopted national amendment for the culture flat, and she had then reintroduced, so that it can be rejected. Also, the expiration of the Conciliation Committee is the subject of the complaint.

Content, it is directed against the illegibility of some products, such as the amendment Vivendi Universal.

The Constitutional Council may declare a law unconstitutional on procedural grounds if, for example, the clarity and sincerity was not given the parliamentary debate. The opposition hopes that this will be found in connection with the coming and going of Article 1 and the culture flat rate.