This record is a partial extract of the original cable. The full text of the original cable is not available.

281100Z Jun 06

UNCLAS PARIS 004458 
 
SIPDIS 
 
SENSITIVE 
 
DEPT FOR E, EB, EB/IPE, EUR/WE 
DEPT PLS PASS TO USTR FOR JSANFORD/VESPINEL/RMEYERS 
COMMERCE FOR SJACOBS, SWILSON 
DOJ FOR CHARROP, FMARSHALL, RHESSE 
COMMERCE PLEASE PASS TO USPTO 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: KIPR ETRD PGOV FR
SUBJECT:  FRANCE'S DIGITAL COPYRIGHT COMPROMISE GUARANTEES 
INTEROPERABILITY 
 
REF A) PARIS 3153 B) PARIS 1847 
 
NOT FOR INTERNET DISTRIBUTION 
 
¶1.  (SBU) SUMMARY.  Following the June 22 conciliation meeting of 
French Parliamentarians, a compromise draft of the copyright law has 
emerged to be approved by vote on June 30.  The compromise text 
legitimizes the use of DRM (Digital Rights Management) technologies 
to protect authors' rights, but retains a requirement that companies 
using these technologies provide information necessary for rivals to 
develop compatible players and music stores.  The compromise text 
falls short of defining interoperability, but gives inordinate 
powers to the new regulatory authority set up to enforce the 
interoperability requirements.  It remains to be seen which other 
countries in the EU will want to follow the French example.  Belgium 
and Denmark have already indicated their enthusiasm for this French 
precedent.  END SUMMARY. 
 
Forcing a political compromise 
------------------------------ 
¶2.  (SBU) A conciliation committee of seven National Assembly 
members and seven Senators convened on June 22 to reconcile two 
versions of the French Digital Copyright Bill, in particular to 
address the interoperability requirements, which have been the most 
controversial element of the bill.  The Senate had considerably 
toned down the National Assembly's "revolutionary" version of 
interoperability, forcing companies to share the secrets of their 
exclusive online music technology in order to allow competitors to 
make compatible digital music players.  Parliamentarians on both 
sides of the political fence thought the divergences deep enough to 
require a second reading.  However, the government, which controls 
the legislative process, decided to stick to its current 
"fast-track" emergency procedure, which requires only one reading by 
both houses.  The compromise text will be subject to a final vote in 
the National Assembly and the Senate on June 30, the last day of 
this Parliamentary session. 
 
Interoperability upheld, but not defined 
---------------------------------------- 
¶3.  (SBU)  The June 22 compromise text leans more to the pro-user 
National Assembly version as opposed to the more pro-owners rights, 
pro-business version of the Senate.  The principle of 
interoperability has been treated as a "given," according to French 
copyright lawyers we contacted on June 27.  Therefore, the 
conciliation committee preferred to focus on the practical and 
effective means of "guaranteeing" interoperability, rather than on 
defining it. 
 
¶4.  (SBU)  The text establishes a new Regulatory Authority for 
Technical Measures with the power to interpret and enforce the 
principle of interoperability and the right to private copy.  To the 
original five members of the new authority, the conciliation 
committee has added a sixth specialist in information technologies. 
The new authority will keep its broad mandate from the National 
Assembly version, allowing it to issue injunctions and fines, which 
could represent up to five percent of the global pre-tax turnover of 
a company, in some cases, or up to 1.5 million euros in other cases, 
something no other independent authority can do under French 
administrative law.  The new authority also has the power to defer a 
case to the French Competition Council. 
 
------- 
Comment 
------- 
¶5.  (SBU)  The final text is likely to pass solely with the support 
of the majority UMP party parliamentarians on June 30.  However, the 
new legislation on Author's Rights and Related Rights in the 
Information Society, originally designed to bring France in line 
with the 2001 EU Digital Copyright Directive, clearly goes beyond 
the directive in its defense of the right to interoperability and 
private copy.  The European Commission will have the last word on 
whether France's transposition is in conformity with the EU 
Copyright Directive.  It is equally unclear whether French 
implementation of the directive is in accordance with the country's 
international commitments, including those stemming from the Berne 
Convention.  French copyright lawyers have noted that the French 
text made no direct reference to any international agreement.  At 
this point, the French digital copyright bill raises more questions 
than it answers, especially since its enforcement will ultimately 
depend on future regulatory implementation and on a new authority 
vested with unprecedented powers. 
 
Stapleton