This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Trade, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Trade on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pirate Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pirate Politics articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
A fact from Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on 1 June 2008, and was viewed approximately 1800 times (disclaimer)(check views). The text of the entry was as follows: "Did you know
We believe that ACTA will help protect the intellectual property that is essential to American jobs in innovative and creative industries. At the same time, ACTA recognizes the importance of online privacy, freedom of expression and due process, and calls on signatories to protect these values in the course of complying with the Agreement.ref
Hope The Edit Is OK - Please Feel Free To Adjust And Related Of Course - In Any Case - Enjoy! Drbogdan (talk) 18:08, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
I adjusted the paragraph a bit and moved it. Feel free to improve further. I think something is wrong btw with the -now- first sentence: shouldn't "will use the Fast track negotiating authority" ee "will not use the Fast track negotiating authority"? L.tak (talk) 20:57, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
Thanks For Your Comments - No Problem Whatsoever - re The "Fast Track" Sentence - Not Sure - Maybe Some Homework Is Needed? - In Any Regards - Thanks Again For Your Comments - And - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 21:07, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
Brief Followup - re "Fast Track" Sentence - Seems Like A "Fast Track" Authority Will NOT Be Used But A "sole excutive agreement" Will Be Used Instead? - Assuming This Is True, I've Updated The Main Article Accordingly - From The Cited Reference -> "The Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) has stated that ACTA will build upon the substance of prior bilateral trade agreements negotiated under “Fast Track” authority. However, ACTA will be negotiated as a sole executive agreement with minimal congressional oversight. The Agreement will operate like a treaty, shaping international standards, but will not be subject to the requirements of the U.S. Constitution’s Treaty Clause, which gives the President the power to enter into foreign agreements “by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate” with a supermajority vote."
Hope The Edit Is Ok - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 21:34, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
Re-reading... Yes you're right; this is what was meant.Thanks for clearing this up! On a much more minor note: I did change the D-OR thing though, as it is not clear what it means for non US-readers... L.tak (talk) 08:19, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Thanks For Your Comments - No Problem re The "D-OR" - I *Entirely* Agree w/ You re Non-US-Readers - Thanks Again - And - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 14:17, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
WELL, AT LEAST IN MEXICO ONE FACTION OF THE GOVERNMENT IS ALREADY MANIPULATING THE PROCESS! LATEST NEWS: YESTERDAY THE MEXICAN GOVERNMENT SIGNED THE TREATISE... AGAINST THE UNANIMOUS SENATE RECOMMENDATION OF NOT SIGNING
In a dirty, dissapointing maneuver, yesterday the Mexican government, in (another) move to try to "stand out" above its ineptitude and mediocrity, signed the treatise agains the absolute, unanimous recommendation of its own senate. Senator Eloy Cantú from the PRI party said that the executive power did NOT inform in a timely manner of its move. Evidently, there are occult players that are interested in Mexico's vote in order to push this agreement. This is not the first time that the presidential power puts obscure interests above people's rights, in a pathetic attempt to appear as a progressist country, when in reality, the public access to Internet is very limited and slow in Mexico. The only hope the people has against this shameful move of its government, lies in its senate, but the hope is thin because they have voted against people's interests many times. The reason stated by the senate in 2010 is that any measure that could limit the information rights of the already limited mexican's internet access goes against the development of the country and the education of its citizens, given the tremendous asymmetry of the country rudimentary telecommunications infrastructure when compared to the majority of the countries of the whole world. Information was broadcast today july 12, 2012 by the very independent journalist Carmen Aristegui in her daily radio news program. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 16:05, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
Indeed a surprise (no anticipation of this event in the news in the past days). I was added about 16 hours ago to this wiki. L.tak (talk) 18:10, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
Japan has ratified ACTA. 1 Please add Japan to the ratifiers list.--188.8.131.52 (talk) 15:23, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
Certainly looks like they are there or they are getting close. Normally parliamentary approval (upper and lower house? tbh I have no idea) is followed by presidential (in Japan Emperial?) assent and then by deposit of the instrument of ratification to the depositary (in this case: Japan itself ;-)). I think we should wait for that depository action before we can add it (e.g. between parliamentary approval and deposit of the Maritime Labour Convention of the Netherlands were 6 months!); could be a day; could be weeks.... L.tak (talk) 17:48, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
Done, they did register the ratification yesterday... L.tak (talk) 12:42, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
We wrote: "On 4 July 2012, the European Parliament rejected the agreement in plenary session" in the lead already. I am not sure it is appropriate to add more regarding a single signatory… L.tak (talk) 00:48, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
Several of the external links are broken, including the link to the DFAT site and both links to the full text are broken. The full text links are of particular importance as they are the topic of the article, so hopefully someone could find a new copy and link to it? Felixphew (talk) 01:24, 14 February 2014 (UTC)