would not withdraw the article, following from a communication by president of the Constitutional Council Pierre Mazeaud that the move's constitutionality was unclear. The Assembly then proceeded with the remaining amendments to article 1, then, expectedly, voted down article 1, then examined article "1 bis". The "global license" was thus removed from the text, and did not make it into the final version of the law that was put into place. However, an Internet access provider named 9 Telecom did implement a similar idea, by providing unlimited downloadable music, protected by DRM, from the Universal catalog to its subscribers; without legal problems as 9 Telecom belongs to Universal. Criminalisation of DRM circumvention Articles 13 and 14 of the law introduced a variety of criminal penalties for those working around DRM technical measures: A fine up to €3,750 is applicable for those who knowingly work around a DRM technical measure for reasons other than research, if this is not done using means procured from others. Prison sentences up to 6 months and/or fines up to €30,000 are applicable for those who supply others with means to work around technical measures, or who knowingly propose such means. Lesser fines will be subsequently introduced by an executive decree. However, none of these penalties apply when the purpose of circumvention was computer security or research. This last clause, exempting circumvention from penalties when it is done for certain purposes, was kept by a narrow 11-10 margin in the Senate. Interoperability and Apple controversy The DADVSI law grants legal protection to digital rights management "technical protection methods" (defined in article 7); that is, it contains clauses criminalizing circumvention of DRMs (articles 13 and 14). The initial draft law was heavily criticized for the vagueness and wide scope of the anti-circumvention clauses. It was feared that: These clauses could potentially outlaw any free software capable of reading DRM-using formats (music, video, or even text content); the fear was that free software implementing DRM would be construed as facilitating circumvention. Designers of software knowingly facilitating circumvention would, with the initial draft, face felony charges of counterfeiting with a maximum penalty of a €300,000 fine and/or three years in prison. Free software advocates thus concluded that the law would have a chilling effect on the development of free software in France, since any modern desktop system is supposed to be able to read music and video content, and