I posted this in an ARs discussion about this very issue.

To start, I responded to the idea that we needed a good translation:

"I agree, we need to know the exact wording. A very good translation is required. Even one word out of place can destroy the meaning.

It seems that this bill can be contradictory. Since we don't have the exact wording, and, by the way, can the bill be changed as it moves to the other part of the government the way it does in the US? In other words, the House bill here has to be compatible with the bill in the Senate. They have to negotiate a compromise before sending it to the President.

Will that happen there as well?

If so, that might change this bill again.

But, otherwise, it seems possible that the dual nature of this bill could be a problem.

If, on one hand, the bill was written to protect DRM, but on the other hand, requires interoperability between many devices, how does it treat devices than don't recognize DRM?

I don't believe that this would actually hurt Apple. Apple now has a very large iPod market, and a very large iTunes market. There is no reason why most people would change their buying habits, even if this bill does pass.

The only difference I can see, is that people could now buy content that is NOT available on the iTunes site. This holds true for all the others even more so, as Apple seems to have the most content.

If anything, this would require all of the sites to attempt to acquire even more content, so that their customers wouldn't go off site. Most people like to do business with one company, if possible.

Sometimes I wonder if Apple wouldn't even want something like this to occur. It would give them the excuse to open their system up, as others have said they must do eventually, without seeming to be weak in doing it.

There is also no evidence that Apple was the one to want the DRM in the first place. It's likely that the content providers demanded it."

It'd be interesting to know exactly what the recording industry is doing at this time to kill this proposal and the likelihood of their influence helping its defeat.

What's annoying about the press' presentation of this issue is the iPod's perceived dependence on iTMS. It's silly to present the story as if iPods would quit selling if there was no French version of iTMS.

I can't wait for the French citizens to call up their lawmakers and give them an earfull.

What the fcku does Gene Munster know about French politics?

Once Apple threatens to pull out of France if this bill passes the French Senate and goes into law, the consumers ought to let their Senators know that they want them to reject the bill. If enough consumers got involved, the bill will fail. On the other hand, if not many complain, au revoir, suckers.

And if that fails, there's car-burning!

FOLKS!!! The iTMS store for France operates out of Luxembourg. Last I checked, Luxembourg is a sovereign country and won't be affected by this law. Apple does not have an iTMS store actually operating from France.

I'm confused. If this bill both strengthens DRM and forces everyone to an interoperable standard, what about Windows Media DRM or any other?

Ah if iTunes goes they always have snails!