and research, excluding all recreational activity the public is strictly restricted to a majority of pupils, students, teaching and research staff directly concerned no commercial use is made a negotiated remuneration compensates these uses for copyright holders. It explicitly allows for transitory and technical reproductions, e.g. web caches. It allows specialized facilities for the handicapped to freely reproduce and represent works, e.g. by making audio recordings, Braille versions. The electronic files used for such works may be deposited at an administration for safekeeping. It allows public libraries, museums and archives to freely reproduce works for purposes of conservation or preservation of onsite consultation. It allows the information press to freely show a reproduction of a work of art (sculpture, painting, architecture...) for purposes of immediate information, if the work of art is directly in relation with the information provided that the author is clearly identified excluding works that themselves aim at reporting information (so a newspaper cannot claim to be able to copy freely press photographs) within reasonable bounds (number of illustration, format). However, article 1/1 bis also introduces the Berne three-step test directly into French law: The exceptions enumerated within this article cannot hamper the normal exploitation of the work, neither can they cause an undue loss to the legitimate interests of the author. This clause is highly controversial. Members of the opposition such as Patrick Bloche have argued that the Berne three-step test may be imposed onto states, so that their legislation conforms to the test, but not onto individual citizens. They argue that the vagueness of this test makes it impossible for citizens to know what is allowed and what is disallowed, whereas counterfeiting of copyright works may be a felony offense, and thus that the law is unconstitutional because it is unintelligible. (In December 2005, the Constitutional Council of France declared clauses in a tax bill to be unconstitutional because they were unintelligible. ) A notable exception has been raised by the General Prosecutor of Paris, who allowed bank FINAMA (part of the French insurer GROUPAMA) to scupper a $200 million software piracy trial for the sake of bank secrecy. In France, the Cour de Cassation and an Appeal Court have dismissed a €520 million software piracy case, ruling that U.S. Copyright certificates were not providing any protection and that software sold by its author during a decade in more than 140 countries does not deserve