The Amendments tabled in relation to Article 16 of the "Projet de loi relatif à la communication audiovisuelle et à la souveraineté culturelle à l’ère numérique" fall into 4 different groups (versions of these AMs have also been tabled in relation to Article 17 of the law that deals with neighbouring rights):

• The first group concerns a number of minor language fixes and inconsequential other additions to the text (some silly like AC361 and some sensible AC1269).
• The second group is a series of amendments aimed at strengthening the best efforts language relating to licenses and efforts to prevent the availability, as well as amendments related to the response time for take downs. It seems that these are relatively unlikely to pass as they substantially alter the standards established by the directive: making "best efforts" is different from "taking the necessary steps".
• Then, there is a group of good AMs introducing strong user rights protections (AC591, 592, 274, 350). Given that these AM have been tabled by small opposition parties (LFI and LR) they are unlikely to be carried. LFI has also tabled an AM (594) aimed at deleting the article (i.e not to implement Article 17), and an AM (591) that would establish an interoperability requirement for platforms covered by Article 17 of the CDSM directive (interesting and laudable but also not likely to pass).
• Finally, there is a series of moderate improvements to the user rights safeguards (mainly aimed at more transparent process) by 2 LREM députés. These would make small improvements but fail to address the main shortcomings (no direct obligation on OCSSPs and rightholders to ensure that user rights are respected) of the proposed implementation. LREM is the governing party, but it is unclear if these AMs represent a party position or the position of an individual député.

Analysis of amendments relating to Article 16 tabled in first reading