I know that but that's not really my point. We already changed the type of VAT on this. Bit of context for better understanding (sorry for the length):
Point of the law article was to say digital products with DRMs and platform locking aren't really products selling, but renting services instead, and so must be taxed as such. On the other hand, ebooks without DRMs and platform locks are technically books, even if not printed, and so must fall into the book tax class, which has a lower rate.
But at the moment, at European Commission level, ebooks are all, DRM or not, considered as services and not eligible to lower tax rates.
However, in 2012, France and Luxembourg kind of said "fuck off" to Europe on this point, and both put the VAT rate on ebooks (with and without DRMs) in the book category. For that those countries are under procedure from European Court and must justify enough the case if they don't want to be fined. The debate is on, and may cause a change on this at European level.
Our government estimated that the law article making the distinction between DRMised and not DRMised products didn't come at the right time regarding the ongoing debate.
And that's what baffles me: the "show up my balls" move had already be done, and this law article was in my opinion a good way to show that we're thinking about what we do, and are not directed by Amazon-leaded lobby on the tax rate choice, because it excluded them of it. And that could have been a good argument over the European Court: we make our choices because of their logical nature, not because of external pressure. The retractation however, shows the opposite.