Talk:Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 1



Somebody do a redirect of Anti-Counterfeit Trade Agreement to this article. -- (talk) 09:17, 26 May 2008 PUTC)


Is this even true? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:25, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Why not scroll down to the list of references at the bottom of the article, look through them, and decide for yourself?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:36, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Criticism and Support

two really important sections missing..Noian (talk) 19:08, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

What, like the fact that the burden of proof of guilt is gone? "Oh, hey, you have 30 gigs of music, that must be ripped, so we're confiscating this." POKETNRJSH (talk) 21:01, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Added. Hollowaynz (talk) 09:01, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
There's no burden of proof of guilt? AVKent882 (talk) 21:11, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
He means acta will be used for general claiming that a bittorent user did wrong even if he only downloaded a linux distro; no looking at what he downloaded, only which protocol he used; the user will receive punishment & will have to proof innocence now instead of the accusing company having to proof abuse. -- (talk) 21:57, 14 April 2009 (UTC)



Why was this article temporarily deleted? What, if anything, was removed? -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 07:25, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Four revisions were not undeleted. Those revisions include two vandal moves of the article and two corresponding reverts. No actual content was lost.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:10, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
That's what NawlinWiki (the admin responsible for the deletion) said and that's what I suspected. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 02:09, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


Can someone in touch with this topic update this article on what was decided after the G8 summit? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Luminiscence (talkcontribs) 14:26, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

ACTA negotiating brief dated July 29 posted to Wikileaks here. If someone could please update the article accordingly. Jberryman (talk) 23:43, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Still no leaks from the G8 conference but a reuters news article seems to show that US airports have started implementing this policy based on 'terrorism' suspicion. Reuters Check out the link and see what you think. I think this may be a relevent update! --Seanpbarry (talk) 03:55, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
I added a paragraph about the US border searches a couple of days ago. Doesn't seem to be directly related to ACTA but it does help provide context.Northwesterner1 (talk) 06:41, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Request for addition

If appropriate, would someone please add my wiki to the external links section? Mark Harris acta at tracs dot co dot nz Nzlemming (talk) 12:07, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Copyright article section

I have created an Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement section in the copyright article, just so you are aware in case any major updating is needed. --SasiSasi (talk) 18:14, 13 August 2008 (UTC)


The page has the description "safe harbor for service providers". Are we happy with the description "safe harbour"? This is opening ISPs to liability for their users, effectively removing common carrier status. Such positive language doesn't seem neutral. I suggest that we call this "ISP liability" or words to that effect. Thoughts? Hollowaynz (talk) 09:06, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I concur. Make it so, number 1. Lincoln F. Stern 03:47, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
I'd have to agree, this ultimately will amount to an attack on net-neutrality. AVKent882 (talk) 13:59, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

To be honest the entire "Scope of the treaty" section should be deleted as it has no sources. It reads like (well researched) opinion, with no reference.--SasiSasi (talk) 21:26, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Extending the article and cleanup

I have tried to extend the article based on the following source [1]. The article needs to be joined up more and the scope is still stightly confused.--SasiSasi (talk) 12:04, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

DFAT briefing reported by Electronic Frontiers Australia

EFA have written up a meeting with the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (Australia) about ACTA. Their main points:

  1. The Commonwealth Government is not seeking to drive domestic changes through ACTA. Overall, there do not appear to be any great changes to Australia’s enforcement regime – it appears to be more focused on affecting other states;
  2. The Government intends to limit the effect of any treaty to trademark infringement and commercial scale copyright infringement;
  3. However, statutory damages for copyright infringement are on the table;
  4. Next meeting, in December, will consider internet distribution;
  5. Camcording is likely to be criminalised;

Further details not already covered in the article; ipods:

Peter Treyde, from the Attorney-General’s Department, insisted that Australia was “not seeking to drive domestic changes” through the ACTA process. Dr Rodgers insisted that it was not the intent of the government to include copyright infringement which is not on a commercial scale – explicitly saying that there will be no ipod searches at the border. The treaty is geared to be ‘TRIPS Plus’, and as Australia is already ‘TRIPS Plus’, DFAT and AGD are not considering many substantial changes to our domestic law. The point of the treaty, from Australia’s perspective, would be to seek adoption by our neighbours of the same type of enforcement regime that we have.

statutory damages:

The second round, in Washington, considered pre-established or statutory damages for infringement. Proponents are seeking a statutory formula or presumption for both the calculation of damages and for an account of profits. There was significant discussion on this point, as Australia does not currently prescribe statutory damages for copyright infringement. Dr Rodgers noted that statutory damages “are indeed controversial measures in the United States”, and that despite the fact that Australia is a small country, we may have allies in other countries and have more influence than we could expect in negotiations with the US. Mr Treyde noted that the practice in the US has led US copyright owners to threaten ‘housewives’ with highly inflated statutory damages in order to force settlements, and noted that the “US has that in its legislation, but as far as that issue has been discussed, there is certainly no agreement as to whether or not that is the way to go. For Australia, it would cause problems at a fundamental level as to the powers of the judiciary to assess and award damages, and it would be difficult to carve out IP” from the general scheme for damages.

When pressed on whether statutory damages would be in the final text of the agreement, we were told, rather ominously, that “given that the main countries that do the drafting are the US and Japan, it would be informative to look at the legislation from those countries.”

Dr Rodgers said that the issue of statutory damages is one of the key issues that DFAT are interested in hearing submissions on. He noted that DFAT considered that Australia’s proceeds of crime provisions are an important tool of deterrence “and quite an apt one”. This is hopefully an indication that Australia will oppose the inclusions of statutory damages in the negotiation process.

ISP cooperation (currently before the courts in Australia):

I asked whether in the next round, when internet distribution is addressed, Australia is considering making any changes to intermediary liability, or requirements for ISPs to implement graduated responses, filtering, or mandatory disclosure of subscriber information? Dr Rodgers responded that the text has not yet been released, and that we won’t know until it is. We were to be “guided by our general approach to negotiations in considering our current regimes being broadly suitable.” Apparently, this is an indication that we won’t be seeing wholesale changes, but it remains a very vague commitment. Mr Treyde added that Australian measures were currently approximately appropriate, and that it would be ‘interesting’ to see what draft text will be presented, but we’ll have to wait and see.


There was also a lot of discussion about the scope of the ACTA as it applies to patents. DFAT attempted to reassure audience members that ACTA would be limited to trademark and copyright infringement, and that the border control and criminal measures discussed so far contained no reference to patent infringement. With regards to pharmaceuticals, DFAT and the AGD noted that the purpose of the border control measures were to catch ‘counterfeit’ pharmaceuticals - used, in this sense, to mean infringing trademarks - and not generics or patent infringing drugs. There was also significant concern from the agricultural lobby that ACTA would have spillover effects on importers of patented seed crops, and DFAT stressed that they had not seen and did not expect to see any patent issues in the negotiation. At the next meeting the preliminary provisions will be discussed, and it is expected that they will limit ‘counterfeiting’ to trademark and copyright infringement.

TRS-80 (talk) 04:02, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

All use of a camcorder will be made criminal? Or some use of camcorders? (talk) 19:27, 8 March 2009 (UTC)


European Parliament -- Typo on December (Dezember) -- Please fix. Phopojijo (talk) 21:05, 20 January 2009 (EST)

Possible sources for updating

--SasiSasi (talk) 06:22, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately it *IS* March 2009 (talk) 17:23, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

ACTA May Include Content Filtering

I've heard that on at least one websource -- does that mean like censorship? (talk) 17:33, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

To the best of my knowledge this might be not entirely unlike the "Great Aussie Firewall". This could amount to censorship -- of course, at first it will be argued it's to deal with "illegal content". Of course who decides what's illegal and what's not illegal? Keep in mind one of the very few things that managed to keep any knowledge, let alone scrutiny, against the misconduct of the last administration was the fact that we could find it on the net. If an international treaty gets signed that allows governments to have the legal authority to regulate and control the flow of information they could do all sorts of horrid things and keep everybody in a figurative "box" in which all the information going in and out is tightly controlled and where we are allowed to "see" only see what they want us to see -- I don't mean to use hyperbole here, but we could turn into China... AVKent882 (talk) 14:07, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
That's not hyperbole at all. Until the public gets the information about this agreement that it has the right to, informative speculation leads us to the obvious endgame of the ACTA - that there will be police-state type restrictions on not only p2p transmissions, but every data transmission you make online will have to be recorded and archived for this agreement to be enforceable. Every website, every email, every IP you ping could potentially be sending you encrypted copyrighted content. And this treaty aims to make anyone involved with the transmission of copyrighted content legally prosecutable, no matter which elaborate ways the geeks come up with to share content - p2p, usenet, swarm, etc. It would be hyperbole to think that the ACTA is nothing less than undemocratic, police-state fascist ghost legislation. We all have reason to be concerned. Today it is the Chinese, tomorrow it is us. MisplacedFate1313 (talk) 22:13, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
I'd have to agree with you here. What can be legally done here? Is contacting the ACLU, EFF, and representatives sufficient? AVKent882 (talk) 00:43, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

S.3325: Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights Act

I don't really know how to create a new Wikipedia page, however there was a bill passed which actually to the best of my knowledge actually creates a new cabinet-level post called a "Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator" and is to be integral in creating a nationwide plan to combat internet piracy along with the executive branch. The bill requires the DOJ to sue violators of copyright and the law creates an FBI Piracy unit, and allows forfeiture of property. Yes, copyright violation is wrong, but Jesus christ the way they're going about this you'd think these people (copyright violators) were committing horrendous terrorist acts. AVKent882 (talk) 04:43, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Possible new information? Given that torrentfreak often has hyperbole and bias in its articles (yes, I care about WR:RS), is this remotely reliable for additional information in the article? ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 01:19, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not 100% sure if what is written in the article is hyperbolic or not, but it does seem to be consistent with other statements (whether true or not) associated with ACTA. AVKent882 (talk) 01:01, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Any way to fight against this?

Resolved: Wikipedia is not a help desk, I'm sure you'll find ways to contact your local representative (whatever that term will be), and/or find a way to support organizations opposed to things like this elsewhere (hint:use google). ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 00:08, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:56, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Contacting all representatives would be helpful, however it would be particularly wise to contact your Senators. A treaty generally requires a vote from the Senate only to ratify it so it would be wise to contact them about it. is where you can find out who your senators are. AVKent882 (talk) 18:53, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Assuming your country has a Senate, of course... For a summary of online resources in different democracies that would help you contact your representatives, or see what your government is doing, see the article on Parliamentary informatics. - Paul (talk) 13:38, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Good point, Paul. I'm an American so I put in a link to where Americans could find and contact their representatives. However I am happy that you posted a link to where people of other countries can find and contact their representatives. AVKent882 (talk) 21:55, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

French Net Piracy Bill Signed

This is not a good sign...
I suggest anyone who cares about online privacy should seriously start writing their representatives! AVKent882 (talk) 16:34, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Cyber Attacks / Cyber Security as Excuse to Ram ACTA Through

I'm wondering something. Since Obama is making so much discussion about enhancing cyber security, and claims circulating around that we're fighting a cyber war and stuff, I'm wondering if this is going to be an excuse to justify ACTA. Since little is known on this bill, it seems possible that Obama could argue it being "necessary" to protect us...

Opinions? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:54, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

This Bill is Anti-Democratic

This Treaty is essentially being drafted in secret, and kept secret until essentially it is just about to be ratified by the Senate. This essentially means that it is virtually impossible for any meaningful protests to pick up enough momentum to raise enough awareness as to the negative aspects of this particular treaty until it is essentially passed. This is strongly anti-democratic. AVKent882 (talk) 01:05, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Also keep in mind that since it is a treaty, it's laws supersede the Constitution of the United States of America, so American citizens cannot make claims that this intrudes on their liberties. The Supreme Court will not be in a position to undo this. In fact, it will be pretty much impossible to undo this. I am surprised this is not being talked about. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:02, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Are you sure about that? According to Wikipedia's Treaty Clause article, under United States domestic law, the constitution supersedes treaties, and anything which becomes part of U.S. law due to treaties becomes part of U.S. federal law, and can be repealed or modified by Congress like any other part of U.S. federal law. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 04:47, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
Doe v. Braden, 57 U.S. (16 How.) 635, 656 (1853), The Cherokee Tobacco, 78 U.S. (11 Wall.), 616, 620 (1871), Geofroy v. Riggs, 133 U.S. 258, 267 (1890); United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 700 (1898); and Asakura v. City of Seattle, 265 U.S. 332, 341 (1924) all would seem to say that no treaty can violate the Constitution.
United States v. Guy W. Capps, Inc., 204 F.2d 655 (4th Cir. 1953) which was upheld by the Supreme Court (348 U.S. 296 (1955)) shows that certain provisions of a treaty can be thrown out as unconstitutional. Reid v. Covert, 354 U.S. 1 (1957) expressly states "this Court has regularly and uniformly recognized the supremacy of the Constitution over a treaty." SO there is over 100 years worth of case law to throw at the Supreme Court to shut down any really insane provisions that may exist.--BruceGrubb (talk) 22:27, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

-I agree. There is no way that this treaty can supersede the constitution. This Treaty is nothing more than censorship, invasion of privacy, and above all greed on the part of millionaires; all under the guise of "copyright protection" with this bill the internet as we know it will be destroyed. Fight it. This will be stopped.

We are Anonymous. We are Legion. We do not forgive. We do not forget. Expect us. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:44, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

It's a shame that you are Anonymous. (talk) 19:05, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Any Further Information Available

Is there any further information available such as when this bill will arrive in the Senate? —Preceding unsigned comment added by AVKent882 (talkcontribs) 02:01, 29 July 2009 (UTC)


Since the ACTA is a so called agreement about intellectual property, I find it hard to believe that it says nothing about the exchange of patents and patent rights at all. In lawyer-language, of course. I find nothing about this in the whole article though. Especially patents on life could be enforced in the EU or elsewhere, where they are prohibited (for the most part) right now. Thus the article should mention this in at least one sentence. -- (talk) 13:44, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Internet Control

The next round of talks began and some info has been leaked and it looks like they're pushing for signees to have ISP's proactively pursue copyright, three strikes and disconnect and every other anti-consumer friendly thing they could fit in. The article can probably be updates as WikiLeaks has new information which has begun hitting the news. (talk) 05:17, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Effectively if this law passes, Wikipedia could be taken down by 7 People. (talk) 23:36, 15 November 2009 (UTC)


Whilst this is clearly a topic of great concern to many of us this doesn't mean this article should drift from Wikipedia's NPOV policy. Use of loaded terms like 'blatant' is not neutral. Sjbradshaw (talk) 08:52, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Removed. You could remove or replace any other occurence of clear non-neutral terms. I doubt anyone will dispute this one. --ColdWind (talk) 22:50, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Still, we should quickly revamp the article to ensure a better understandability and remove content placed to confuse and bore readers. Because NPOV as we may be, we still pursue our own goals:

  • Inform people.
  • Educate people.
  • Make people realize what they can do.

In this Article there is Content only aimed at boring people. Attention is like money on the Internet, by making something seem boring they Censor it more effectively than by deleting it. This treaty is a multi billion dollar project for nearly all media corporations. They may even pay an Administrator to keep the article boring and low Quality. Probono1 (talk) 00:12, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

The order of sections can't be decided over how funny or boring are them. Also, if a section is biased (either pro-ACTA or anti-ACTA) it should be neutralized, but it has nothing to do with the position of the section. --ColdWind (talk) 20:56, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, I have 2 Motivations here, both in favour of Wikipedia, and one of them absolutely in tune with Wikipedias main goals. I will start with the first one. I am not neutral on the ACTA. I clearly state it here. The ACTA is too dangerous, it could destroy the internet as we know it. However there are many people who would get billions of profit out of it.
I think the Section about Legal Framework was placed by someone profiting from it. It is a form of wikipulation. It is typical political whaffling, used to conceal what really counts. It is used to make people stop reading the article. After getting that out of the way I will tell you the valid reason to place the section somewhere else. The section is boring. We on Wikipedia have quality standards. It is repetive and not informing at all. Nobody will read on after seeing it, meaning as an Encyclopedia we have failed. I want to make this a better article. I don't want to start an editwar. After considering it for 10 more minutes I will move the section to "provisions" and shorten it. The legal framework talks more about a supposed goal, then of anything actually contained in the Treaty. Probono1 (talk) 22:17, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry. "It's boring" is not a valid argument and it's not necessarily related to NPOV. While the Legal framework section might not be in the better shape, it cointains encyclopedic and useful information (be it boring or funny). Such as:
  • ACTA would establish a new international legal framework that countries can join on a voluntary basis. This is fundamental for the article. You could add that the "voluntariousness" of international trade signing is not so voluntary, but that's another story.
  • and would create its own governing body outside existing international institutions such as the World Trade Organization (WTO), the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) or the United Nations. this is very important too. It means that if ACTA is approved, it might be enforced by a new goberning body, independent and not subordinated to the UN, WTO, WIPO, etc. I fail to see how this is "boring" for anyone really interested in ACTA.
There are some redundancies in the rest of the section, and some bits might be moved to other sections, but the information it contains is essential for this article. --ColdWind (talk) 01:56, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Mh, yes, that independent governing body part is not covered elsewere. I disagree on the voluntariousness, because that is as you said another story, which may warrant its own section, or maybe could get a sentence with a Wikilink to the issue of "voluntary" Treaties. What do you think of the current version? Probono1 (talk) 14:01, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

It's fine, but it shouldn't be under the Provisions section. I think its contents belong to the introduction, or an early section. --ColdWind (talk) 20:05, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

That exactly is the one thing I do not want. It would be good to have a third opinion. The Creation of a Legal Framework is a provision. Due to the Highly controversial nature of the Bill, I am suspicious of your Good Faith.
Also you have an edit history more connected with Free software than with Law. These edits were minor, formatting in nature and very subtle, only slight changes to neutralize positive tones. On the other hand your edits for sites connected with intelectual property and the record industry were, while always conform with policys and guidelines, more positively inclined.
While I still think this was unintentional and caused by your Job, social standing or other circumstances, I can't help but being a concerntroll. probono1 (talk) 10:44, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Discussing my job, social standing or other circumstances is absolutely out of scope here. But, anyway, since you're concerned with these (and you could've googled anyway) I think I can clear your "good faith doubts": I've been free software developer for +3 years, I've been involved in "anti intellectual property" activism for some more, I'm studying the history of intellectual property treaties on my spare time and I'm campaigning against ACTA. However, when editing Wikipedia (where I'm not newbie in any way, just haven't focused on the English edition since it's not my native language) I try to be as neutral and precise as I can. For my political opinions I use means external to Wikipedia. If you have any objection to any of my edits, please, use the discussion page of the appropiate articles.
Now, back to the real discussion:
  • Maybe Legal framework isn't the right title for the section? What I'm sure is that its contents are introductory and should be in an early part of the article.
  • It's been clarified over and over in this discussion page that ACTA is not a bill. It's an executive agreement. Once it's written and signed, it will lead to new legislation in every signing country, but it's not a bill itself. --ColdWind (talk) 20:45, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Moved section's contents to the introduction. --ColdWind (talk) 00:09, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I did not want to discuss any of this. WP:CARES applies to your background as software developer as well as to campaigning against ACTA and your political views. While I have political views, these are just motivating me to help improve this article. I do not enforce any points of view or anything, I just want to have a good and understandable article. I want to make this a good encyclopedia. My problem is justWP:TIND, because, there might be one here. Oh, and I was just careless, when I called it a Bill, Sorry. Probono1 (talk) 16:11, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Ok. So next time refrain from throwing doubts about my good faith or insinuations about my background. Let's go directly to the discussion of the article.--ColdWind (talk) 20:39, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Repetition and Rubbish

The opening section and 'Legal Framework' section, repeat the same phrase contiunally, rely only on statments by those agreeing to the act - which are largely the SAME - and tell me nothing of what this act is actually going to do, if it is passed. Its really a prime example of the kind of nonsensical drivel only wikipedia can produce.

Seconded Please let us shorten these sections considerably. They may have been put there by Supporters of the ACTA to bore people away from the article. (talk) 23:31, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Removed the redundancies on that paragraph (although it's not under Legal Framework anymore. --ColdWind (talk) 20:42, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Conclusion in 2010

The treaty is to conclude in 2010? (talk) 03:00, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

When Is This Bill To be Voted On?

Does anybody know when they plan to vote on this bill? This bill strikes me as very disturbing... (talk) 17:35, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you. I've been looking for data on when this bill is to be voted on as well. I can't seem to find it. I would not be surprised if we won't know about when this bill is to be passed until just before it happens and we'll have no reaction time to protest or do anything about it (i.e. contact congressmen, senators, politicians, etc) AVKent882 (talk) 14:01, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to disappoint, but this "bill" is an exclusive multi-lateral agreement and as such does not require voting or parliamentary process. Icedog (talk) 22:56, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

You mean there's no recourse? Has the treaty been signed into being? AVKent882 (talk) 16:24, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
This is not a bill, or an act, it is an international agreement. The only voting to be done is by the board members of the various media industry lobbying firms, who have colluded with government officials around the world to create a stardard by which p2p and torrent file sharing piracy can be legally prosecuted on an individual basis. The treaty's negotiations (as best as we can tell) are still ongoing as of early 2009. However, numerous freedom of information requests have been replied with severely redacted (censored) documents, out of the hundreds which exist only 10 have been released in any form, with the argument being that the public should not have this information due to "national security" concerns. Yes, there is a problem here with representation, there is a problem with the fascist ideals inherent in this agreement - and the fact that while the public has no right to know about it, the RIAA, MPAA and other industry reps have free and full access to the negotiations. Yes, there is a big problem here. Get the word about about this thing, contact your government reps and your friends, because PEOPLE need to know. MisplacedFate1313 (talk) 22:06, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
The first part of your claim is factually incorrect, at least as far as the United States is concerned -- treaties must go through the Senate before they're ratified. This is, in fact, a favorite tactic of the government -- the President gets good press by signing a treaty, then the Senate never passes it (this is what happened to the Kyoto Accords under Clinton). And too, the Senate has the power to pass only certain parts of a treaty. This treaty is bad enough without making up FUD against it. (talk) 16:36, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
I agree with you on this one -- the people are entitled to know about the contents of this bill and all it entails. National Security is a completely ludicrous excuse, this bill doesn't have anything to do with National Security -- it has to do with corporate interests, greed and our online privacy from government surveillance. The government is simply using the claim of "National Security" as an excuse to shield the contents of this treaty from the public and protect itself from the people. It is completely against our ideals for a government to use secrecy to protect itself from the people they're supposed to be serving. AVKent882 (talk) 20:38, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
By the way -- Is there any part of the Constitution or US Law that says a treaty does not have the power to override the Constitution? AVKent882 (talk) 20:38, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
Doe v. Braden, 57 U.S. (16 How.) 635, 656 (1853), The Cherokee Tobacco, 78 U.S. (11 Wall.), 616, 620 (1871), Geofroy v. Riggs, 133 U.S. 258, 267 (1890); United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 700 (1898); and Asakura v. City of Seattle, 265 U.S. 332, 341 (1924)all would seem to say that no treaty can violate the Constitution.
United States v. Guy W. Capps, Inc., 204 F.2d 655 (4th Cir. 1953) which was upheld by the Supreme Court (348 U.S. 296 (1955)) shows that certain provisions of a treaty can be thrown out as unconstitutional.
Also I would love to know how they plan to enforce this thing in the countries where piracy is the worst. The International Intellectual Property Alliance of 2002 and latest from BSA shows that most of the piracy percentagewise actually occurs in what we would call poor countries. As bad as China's 80% piracy rate is there are countries where it is totally out of control (Georgia at 95% case in point). Ironically the BSA study shows the countries with the most developed software industry have the paradoxical situation of the internal piracy rates but high monitory losses ie the losses their companies suffer are not due to pirates within their own boarders but those outside them. While China has made headway given that the far more powerful Emperors couldn't stop Cheng Shih (1775-1844) from pirating physical good and had to buy her off I don't think the Chinese communist Party is going to get their over all piracy rate down to that of the "developed" countries.--BruceGrubb (talk) 22:18, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
This is the same problem with DRM, it takes away peoples rights but doesn't actually prevent piracy since a determined pirate will find a way around it. I personally think that combating piracy is just an excuse to control our freedom of speech without being obvious about it. Admittedly it's a conspiracy theory that obviously has no basis in reality since we all know governments are completely honest and never lie to their citizens... Donkyhotay (talk) 19:06, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Reference for Leak?

The article referenced by 38 doesn't say anything about a leak, it only references the denied FOIA request. That part should proabaly have its own citation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:21, 19 November 2009 (UTC) Here is a copy of the denied FOIA request but no leaks of the treaty has come to light yet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:12, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Please keep the article High quality

There has been an ongoing dispute between me and ColdWind. I am aware of Wikipedias Guidelines and the AGF rule, but I can no longer assume Good Faith. In the Past Cold wind made many little changes to the article, and subtly made it worse. He always changes something and thereafter continues to make many really really minor Edits to the reference's formatting or other trivialities, until the "undo" function breaks. Also these edits are probably to create the image of a dedicated editor who puts much effort into the encyclopedia, and to raise his editcount(An easily fooled measurement of dedication). I would wish that we both stop editing this article. probono1 (talk) 13:49, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Please, stop the personal attacks and suggesting that I'm trying to fool people about my dedication... if you're interested in my dedication, you can check my contributions in the Spanish Wikipedia. Anyway, this is an ad hominem argument which is absolutely invalid, if you have problems with any edit, you should discuss that edit and not the dedication of the author (you're participating as an anonymous IP and nobody's calling doubt about your edits because of that). I think that my changes in reference formatting are not trivialities at all. I'm trying to ensure that the article is correctly referenced (both by the quality of the references and its formatting). If you think any of my edits make the article worse, please, discuss them here. Tell me exactly what editions you're talking about and we can work it out. --ColdWind (talk) 17:55, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

How about removing:"It is claimed" The Neutral:"Internet distribution and information technology" becomes the clearly Negative "piracy over the Internet" going from citing: "Speak out against ACTA - Free Software Foundation" to the heavily censored "ustr-acta-summary" You seem to be favoring the official government sources, which in this, admittedly unusual, case fall under WP:RS#Self-published_sources_.28online_and_paper.29 Also some of the External Links have vanished. Mostly those who lead to Anti-Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement sites. I am an anonymous IP(a little bit of an oxymoron, but oh, well...). It is good if people question my edits. It is bad that not more people question the edits of logged in users with a high edit count. I don't care what you did on the Spanish or any other Wikipedia, I don't care about you personally, and I do not use ad hominem. I just care about what you do NOW. What you do on THIS page. In each of your series of edits you have made such changes. And even after I pointed it out, you still continue to make many many small changes to keep people from reverting you. Did you ever see the Button right of the "Save page" Button? If you had good faith you would USE it. You are not a human to me. You are a series of Actions.probono1 (talk) 22:17, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

  1. I guess you refer to this edit where I changed is claimed by its proponents to be in response "to the increase in global trade of counterfeit goods and pirated copyright protected to for establishing international standards on intellectual property rights enforcement. It's described by its proponents as a response "to the increase in global trade of counterfeit goods and pirated copyright protected works.". I think it's much clearer now, before that, it was not clear what ACTA was about (enforcement? new patent law? something else?). ACTA is about intellectual property enforcement. It doesn't need a X claims... before because it's a well known fact and nobody is disputing it. Neither official sources, leaked documents, critics (be it Michael Geist, FFII, EFF, FSF or any of the major critics), pro-ACTA lobbyst, academic sources, etc.
  2. Ok. Context. "Internet distribution and information technology" is an ambiguos and too broad term, going far beyond ACTA scope. I used "piracy over the Internet" (even when I don't like the term) citing official sources. Maybe copyright infringements on the Interet is better?
  3. Context again. Why would you favor a reference to the FSF campaign in this context? FSF has found the information in the sources I'm referring too. When I'm doing research, I want the main sources, not every site which has cited such sources.
  4. Official sources are fundamental when studying policy making. As well as independent sources. For example, I also introduced a reference to "The Impact of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement on the Knowledge Economy: The Accountability of the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative for the Creation of IP Enforcement Norms Through Executive Trade Agreements" by Eddan Katz (from the EFF) when that was appropiate. I try to use the most reliable and appropiate reference for each fact. Of course I'm not infalible, so if you find a better source, please, share (it's a specially a tough task with ACTA because of the scarcity of reliable sources).
  5. Wikipedia is not a directory. We shouldn't list every site about ACTA out there. Under the external links policy, what should be listed here are ACTA official pages and a selection of the most relevant non-official pages. A lot of the links listed there didn't met any relevancy criteria by far. Now, I'm sure there are more that should be listed, but carefully. Right now there's Wikileaks' ACTA page, which is cleary the most relevant non-official page about ACTA, EFF's campaign, which is one of the most relevants and containing more documentation, and Michael Geist's blog which is probably the most relevant blog on ACTA criticism.
  6. About the previewing changes. You're right. I should be more careful. I often check in changes and then realized I missed something.
  7. If I'm not human to you, then discuss my edits precisely (as you've done in your last comment) and stop calling my good faith into doubt based on FUD or suggesting malicious intentions (like crafting commits to prevent reverts: I'm sorry for these, but since you're an experience user, I'm sure you'd be able to selectively undo changes you consider harmful... or you can discuss them here).
I hope I explained these points clearly, if you have any objection, those are welcome. And if you have proposals even better. Cheers. --ColdWind (talk) 23:45, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Re WP:3O request: Having read the foregoing exchanges between ColdWind and Probono, I am proposing on the WP:3O talk page that the third opinion request be removed as inappropriate for the reasons stated there. TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 06:23, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

If the dispute only involves the 2 users, then I think that it's a reasonable WP:3O request. I don't see any evidence that either user is a vandal, nor that either user is not acting in good faith, so I have re-characterized the dispute. As for the question on sourcing, I do not see government sources as being inherently unreliable, nor should they be considered to be self-published. They are not, however, necessarily neutral either. Bwrs (talk) 03:51, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Removal proposal fails for lack of consensus, WP:3O request remains listed and active. TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 14:37, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Which is my Problem... The analogon with self published sources was drawn because these sources are not neutral. Also "Vandal IP" was what I called myself half Jokingly because I would like to revert cold winds Rule and guideline conform changes. And, am a IP because of my beliefs.probono178.55.244.136 (talk) 09:33, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Of course. Governmet sources are non-neutral. They're specially non-neutral in this case. However:
  1. They're the primary source of information. Most sources in this article (press, academic, anti-ACTA campaigns, etc) are using these sources to get their information. If we had more reliable independent sources which had confirmed their information by means different of the Government sources... then it would be great and I'd use them too, but there aren't.
  2. Government sources are properly used to cite well-known and accepted facts. When they're used to cite "Government-biased" opinions, the text properly reflects that with expressions like "According to X..." or using blockquotes. If you find a case where the article doesn't comply with this, please, just change it or warn here.
Again, whenever you find better sources (I'm looking for them too), please, share them.
I'd also like to point out that newspaper sources have been overused in this article. IMO that's not the way to go since non-specialzed press is usually inaccurate or downright wrong. I've tried to replace them too. It's better to use sources whose authors know what they're talking about (Michael Geist and Eddan Katz are good examples). --ColdWind (talk) 10:06, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Third Opinion

I'll do my best at some mediation on a few of the issues here.

  1. probono1/IP: you should stop performing massive reverts of ColdWind's edits without justification; that is edit warring, and it does not help improve the article. Instead, make small, incremental edits, and use the edit summary field to describe and justify your edits. I will also remind you that Wikipedia is not a place for advocacy or a place to right great wrongs: the purpose of the article is to neutrally state reliable information on the topic, not to "make people realize what they can do," as you yourself have stated.
    • Also, please reconsider creating a user account, so everyone can easily see which edits are yours.
  2. The article should not read like it is describing a government conspiracy or be written with the supposition that that is the case; doing otherwise is a violation of WP:NPOV. Using phrases like "its proponents claim/describe..." when describing the stated purpose of the treaty is WP:weaseling and does not advance the credibility of this article.
  3. Sources from the government should be included under this part of WP:RS.

If I've missed an issue, or you think I have something incorrect, please let me know. Mildly MadTC 17:25, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry if I cite too much of your text and maybe a bit out of context(as a revenge :P): "stop performing massive reverts of ColdWind's edits without justification; that is edit warring," Well, I did this once and have shortly after requested outside opinions/Help(You for example) so that this does not become an editwar. "Instead, make small, incremental edits" which are much harder to track and revert, I am a huge fan of the Preview Button and tell everyone to use it as much as possible. "use the edit summary field to describe and justify your edits" I cannot do so on mondays and wednesdays, Sorry, but I try to do it as often as possible. The large revert had such a Monday-Morning-Oh-My-God-I-Have-to-go! Edit summary. "right great wrongs" Context. I have also stated that I want to do it not "using" Wikipedia, but by improving the article. Wikipedia Style! I will not Violate NPOV! And "its proponents claim/describe..." is by no means a Weasel word, because one knows who it's proponents are. WP:RS s.o.themselves has problems with 1.,4., and maybe 3. And My plight is to avoid 5. And this is just a Guideline, I am talking about: WP:SOURCES "Articles should be based upon reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy."

Finally:"Also, please reconsider creating a user account, so everyone can easily see which edits are yours." No. I only call myself Probono here, and will vanish into nothingness if this one is resolved. 1 because maybe someone wants to follow my example, and can then be Probono2. Nobody should know who did which edits, unless they are outright Vandalistic and deserve a Banhammerlock. Each Edit is to be seen not as a work of someone but should ask the question:"Does this make Wikipedia a better Encyclopedia?" I do not want a reputation, especially not a good one. I score 7231 Points on the WP:WHT But that does not mean my contributions are better than anyone elses, and I "DO NOT WANT"(that one is not yelled but cited) the benefits of a user account. Probono1 (talk) 20:53, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Just for the record, I have no problem with that revert. Also, I have no problem with Probono editing without an account (except for the fact that it might be annoying not being able to use his discussion page since it's a dynamic IP... but I can live with it). I'm ok as long as we can discuss point by point with proper arguments and as long as I'm respected and my good faith isn't called into doubt spuriously. --ColdWind (talk) 22:33, 30 November 2009 (UTC)


The current structure of the article doesn't look optimal to me, information is fragmentated and is not easy to follow. I'm wondering if we could agree on a better structure and modify the article accordingly. Any suggestions? I think the Negotiations section should be renamed to Timeline or History and be broader than just the negotiations, incorporating some of the info in Requests for disclosure and Support to get a better idea of the whole picture in chronologic terms. What do you think? --ColdWind (talk) 00:04, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Could we shorten or delete the second section now that we have the infobox? (talk) 20:25, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Not really. Infoboxes are meant to summarize information already present (and referenced) in the text body. --ColdWind (talk) 22:06, 3 December 2009 (UTC)


Any good and reliable sources on ACTA? Such as exhaustive and well documented independent reports? --ColdWind (talk) 12:26, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

You won't find much about it from commercial sources, because they are the ones who will profit the most from ACTA. (talk) 18:49, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Of course. My question still stands as is: exhaustive and well documented independent reports. Non-specialized newspapers or TV channels are not, most of the time, this kind of source. --ColdWind (talk) 22:07, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Are you looking for a sort of consolidated analysis? I don't think that you'll find that, since there aren't any officially released documents, only the leaks. The negotiating parties have been fairly successful in keeping this under the radar. Blowfish (talk) 00:36, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
I'm looking for analysis that are reasonably well documented. Reasonably considering ACTA's secrecy. I don't expect to find consolidated analysis such as those that could be available for an already public and established treaty... but things such as:
Katz, Eddan; Hinze, Gwen (2009), "The Impact of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement on the Knowledge Economy: The Accountability of the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative for the Creation of IP Enforcement Norms Through Executive Trade Agreements" (PDF), The Yale Journal of International Law, retrieved November 24th 2009  Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help); Check date values in: |access-date= (help)
--ColdWind (talk) 13:41, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Broken Links

Who do we notify if a link is broken? Specifically reference #6 links to an article that is no longer available. Fr33d0m0fsp33ch (talk) 01:19, 6 December 2009 (UTC)Fr33d0m0fsp33ch

Just report it here as you've done. Reference 6 fixed. --ColdWind (talk) 11:30, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Add to the main page - The fact that Ben F Rayfield will pay $1000 for a certain legal proof

The following should be copied to the main page (instead of this Talk page) because the existence of the offer is a fact, not an opinion. The reasons the offer was made are Ben F Rayfield's opinion, but they help to explain why that fact started to be true. It is important to the "Anti Counterfeiting Trade Agreement" because it is a new type of interaction between non-government people and laws and is possible to have a big effect.

I (Ben F Rayfield) will pay $1000 to anyone who proves the "Anti Counterfeiting Trade Agreement" (or group of laws if they divide it that way) violates at least 1 copyrighted thing, and the proof must be done in a court of law and result in at least 1 of the writers of that law being found guilty and receive punishment assigned by that legal system.

If any of the writers of the "Anti Counterfeiting Trade Agreement" are breaking the law they create, then we should help to prove it to show our respect for that law.

Many people will be interested to know that the copyright system is so disorganized that almost any copyrighted work violates at least 1 copyright, therefore I am almost certain this can be proven if enough people offer to add money to my offer, maybe start an official charity for this fund, or some other way to organize the money.

The offer was first written at (Ben F Rayfield's name is "codesimian" there):

BenRayfield (talk) 06:49, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I applaud your efforts, but this can't be included here. Neither internet fora, nor wikipedia talk pages are considered appropriate sources. If you managed to get someone to report on your offer, then it would be admissible. Blowfish (talk) 20:27, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I've seen lots of unprovable "external links" on Wikipedia pages, and my offer has more credibility than that. I've posted on that forum for years and am a professional at the subject the forum is about. That does not add much credibility to my offer, but Wikipedia does not have hard rules. Wikipedia makes exceptions when its important. I wrote it here instead of on the main page so somebody else could choose which parts are unbiased and to copy/summarize there. If that is not enough, then what method of proof must I demonstrate to have the level of credibility necessary? If its simply a third-party thing, I'm sure lots of people would be interested in this. I first heard about it on that forum, so I responded there with my offer. Do I need to set up an official fund and website? I know what I wrote is uniquely relevant to the article. BenRayfield (talk) 01:36, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

The March 2010 leak

There's a new leak, being called the "biggest ever ACTA leak"[2]:

This article is getting out of date and there's some vague parts. This leaked text can be linked to per-page, so instead of saying that the draft "contains X", we can say what it contains, and provide a link to the exact page (e.g. page 12), and copy and paste the text into the "|quote=" field of the citation tag. Gronky (talk) 11:55, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

The pirate bay has the leaked info in PDF format here (talk) 05:09, 28 March 2010 (UTC)


This bill has been rejected by the EU parliament [3]
Someone should update the article. (talk) 03:45, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Automate archiving?

Does anyone object to me setting up automatic archiving for this page using MiszaBot? Unless otherwise agreed, I would set it to archive threads that have been inactive for 30 days and keep ten threads.--Oneiros (talk) 20:36, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

 Done--Oneiros (talk) 23:36, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Removed unencloyedic/original research/opinion

Removed this unsourced sections

"The ACTA will also force net filtering and a "3 strikes policy" while jeopardizing your rights as a citizen. Net filtering is NOT about piracy, it's about government control. ANY website can be blocked for ANY reason. As little as posting fan-art of copywritten characters could cause legal action, and ISP's will be forced to cooperate in monitoring you and turning you in without a warrant."

While this may be true it should be left out until it can be sourced and restated in an encyclopedic manner. Ngaskill (talk) 03:08, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

There have been internet articles released over a year ago that stated effectively what was stated in the quoted passage above. AVKent882 (talk) 17:21, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Original research in lead

Removed the following:

Critics argue ACTA is part of a broader strategy of venue shopping and policy laundering employed by the trade representatives of the US, EU, Japan, and other supporters of rigid intellectual property enforcement. This strategy entails negotiating for terms in international treaties that might prove too politically unpopular to pass in national assemblies. Similar terms and provisions currently appear in the World Customs Organization draft SECURE treaty,[1] and critics have argued that the anticircumvention provisions of Title I of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act were similarly passed after policy laundering via treaties negotiated through the World Intellectual Property Organization.[2]

The first two sentences are unsourced and the last is improper synthesis. This paragraph could be reinstated if an editor can find a reliable secondary source that states the claim made in it. Hartboy (talk) 22:55, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Threats to Freedom, NOT JUST Free Software

Please note the FSF states the ACTA is a threat to freedom not just a threat to free software... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Enigma foundry (talkcontribs) 02:55, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

No, from the source cited - "ACTA threatens free software". Please change it back to Free Software unless you can cite a source stating that it is a threat to "Freedom", which is not in this source. —Joshua Scott (LiberalFascist) 03:01, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Move protect?

Why is this move protected? The common name is ACTA treaty. Sephiroth storm (talk) 02:34, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

July 2010 Leak

Here's the new ACTA leak, dated 01 of July 2010. Fabius byle (talk) 20:56, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Aftermath of the disaster

Why does the article not mention all of the bad repercussions that the majority of internet will have to deal with if this passes? —Preceding unsigned comment added by QWERTY531 (talkcontribs) 19:26, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Because wikipedia writers are not clairvoyant? (talk) 16:09, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
Because Wikipedia does not contain speculation. Nor is a place to conduct campaigns. There is already a Criticism section. If you wish to add cited material from reliable and reputable sources there, then please do. I've also removed the NPOV tag you've added. The purpose of this tag is to draw contributions to a discussion here about what you see as the article's lack of neutrality. However, you haven't presented a case for this to start any such discussion. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 22:39, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

New Section: Sickening Beyond Stomach Churning

This article requires a new section titled Sickening Beyond Stomach Churning for the following reasons:

1. I vomited upon reading the leaked documents.
2. I was appalled and felt sick upon becoming aware of just how secret these discussions are.
3. It is very likely that I am not the only one who has become affected by these problems.
4. Many would be sickened by the fact that documents that the authors don't want to go public can be copyrighted, then protected by this agreement (for example the instance where the U.S. military has claimed a copyright violation against wikileaks for its hosting of internal documents which describe various moral violations).
5. Copyrighting or patenting of technologies prevents others from using such technologies, which has occurred where oil companies have patented technology for the efficiency and improvement of motor vehicles.
6. I may or may not regularly download "counterfeit" products, and if I deem that quality workmanship has been put into the product, I will choose to purchase such item and I am certain that many others are the same.
7. In addition to the censorship program that my government (Australian) is attempting to thrust upon its citizens, this would make Australia and other pro-censorship countries a complete nanny state.
8. My download speeds are slow enough as it is without protective checks against counterfeiting and censorship requirements which would also effect download speed and the general efficiency of the internet.
9. Many other things. (talk) 12:15, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

This treaty is entirely about government control, not about combatting piracy. This three-strikes policy doesn't even require a conviction, just an accusation which is completely antithetical to the whole concept of presumption of innocence, which this treaty has no regard for. As for net-filtering, the only thing that would come out of that would be massive government censorship of the internet. When Australia (as you already know) instituted a proposed internet filter, and test-ran it, it became obvious that they were simply going for textbook internet-censorship. ACTA would even be worse in that it would extend to a multitude of countries, which would include the United States, and as an American citizen, the thought of the United States, as well as other supposed democracies adopting a policy of internet censorship is absolutely terrifying. How are the people supposed to be able to know when a government is doing things that are against the will of it's people, and potentially dangerous to the rights and freedoms of its citizens? AVKent882 (talk) 17:27, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
This type of editorializing is unencyclopedic, Wikipedia is not a soapbox. If something's missing from the criticism section and you can cite an appropriate source, feel free to expand it. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 06:27, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Please understand that Wikipedia, especially the discussion section, is not for discussion on a subject, but instead about an article on the subject. Keep your political opinions out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:25, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

"And keep facts out of the article, that's not what it's for!"

The irony of your statement is appalling. (talk) 02:52, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

format section title according to MoS


Please format the section title Threats to Freedom and Fundamental Human Rights as all lowercase: Threats to freedom and fundamental human rights. -- (talk) 17:20, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Done: Thanks. Salvio Let's talk 'bout it! 18:31, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

ACTA is un-American!

Just sayin'

    • Such expressions are not valid for inclusion in the ACTA article. Also, your use of "un-American" is inaccurate since it requires a date for context. While American laws at 1776 to 1784 were created to promote individual freedoms, it is clear that American since the 1970's has been about the consolidation of wealth and construction of business-friendly laws and regimes. That is the new America and thus any expression of "un American" requires a date or description of which era such an expression is directed towards. Currently, use of the expression "un American" is incorrect when applied to the current America and thus your use of the expression shows that you clearly do NOT understand how to correctly use the expression. If this was the year 1786, then your expression would be relevant, but as it is, your expression would be more accurate if you revised it to say "ACTA is pro-American" since the general American population worships money (prosperity) and the rights of business to make money. I would expect that the American population in general actually approves of ACTA and desires its passage - doesn't that make ACTA "pro- American" rather than "un-American"? *wry nudge*
    • If you actually meant that the ACTA article should describe in greater detail ACTA's non consumer-friendly aspects and Policy Laundering, then you would certainly have a point. As with DMCA, it is possible for various aspects of ACTA to be abused in order to obtain greater profit. Unfortunately, it is the way of business to take advantage of laws to increase profit. The Chilling Effect is quite probable with ACTA. AnimeJanai (talk) 22:09, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't a forum for discussion, especially not the discussion section. Please keep your opinions OUT of this website and especially OUT of the discussion page.

its called the discussion section... —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:22, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I can understand keeping our opinions out out of the article, not the discussion page. It's not like we're planning the downfall of the western world, we're trying to voice our opinions - namely, that ACTA is unconstitutional and done in the name of greed, not copyright safety. (talk) 02:51, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓ ▓▓░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░▓▓ ▓░████░░░░░░░░░░████░▓ ▓░░░░░█░░░░░░░░█░░░░░▓ ▓▒░░░░░░░▓░░▓░░░░░░░▒▓ ▓░▒████▒░▓░░▓░▒████▒░▓ ▓▒░░░░░░░▓░░▓░░░░░░░▒▓ ▓░░░░░░░░▓░░▓░░░░░░░░▓ ▓░░░░░░░▓▒░░▒▓░░░░░░░▓ ▓░░░░░░▓░▒░░▒░▓░░░░░░▓ ▓▒▒▒▒▒░▓░░░░░░▓░▒▒▒▒▒▓ ▓░░█░░░░▒████▒░░░░█░░▓ ▓░░▒██████▒▒██████▒░░▓ ▓░░░░░░▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒░░░░░░▓ ▓░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░▓ ▓▓░░░░░░░████░░░░░░░▓▓ ▓▓▓░░░░░░░██░░░░░░░▓▓▓ ▓▓▓▓░░░░░░██░░░░░░▓▓▓▓ ▓▓▓▓▓░░░░░██░░░░░▓▓▓▓▓ ▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓ —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:28, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Negotiations section

Is it necessary to have such a detailed and comprehensive discussion of every single round of negotiations for a proposed treaty? Compare to the section on negotiations for a historically important treaty like the Treaty of Versailles, which consists of several, brief and concise paragraphs on that aspect of the agreement. My opinion is that it is not necessary and should be severely edited down, but I wanted to raise the question here before making such a substantial edit. Hartboy (talk) 04:25, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Changes as mentioned above made to article page. I removed most of the trivial, irrelevant, and unencyclopedic chaff in that section.Hartboy (talk) 05:27, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
I don’t think that what you have removed is trivia. The article for the Treaty of Versailles is a stub at best. If you think that it should be expanded than please do so, but don’t cut relevant material from other articles. Information on which countries have participated in which negotiation round is not trivial, especially because the treaty is under negotiation and it is not clear which countries will sign up to it. I revert your removal. Please see WP:TRIVIA.--SasiSasi (talk) 15:34, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
Sasi, Wikipedia has a very clear policy, for good reason, against reverting good faith edits. Always assume good faith. In addition, I posted my suggested edits to the section here a couple days prior to making the edit you reverted, so the fact that it was a good faith effort should have been even more apparent. I'm leaving the article as is now to prevent an edit war, but keep that policy in mind for the future.
I said it was 'trivial' not 'trivia' - meaning it's a complete exposition of all possible details, not an indiscriminate collection of information. If the negotiating parties changed, your argument that which country participated in each round might carry some weight. However, each round has consisted of the same parties, so including that information is merely repetitive.
Breaking each round of negotiations into its own subheading makes the section and the table of contents for the entire article substantially longer, yet the majority of information under each subsection consisted merely of one sentence describing a date, location, and parties involved for that round. I realize there aren't strict guidelines that address this issue, but it seems to me that this is clearly overkill. It would be similar to an article on a major trial including a subsection for each motion filed. And considering that little of note has occurred during many of the individual negotiation rounds, it doesn't seem to warrant the current treatment of the negotiation process as a whole. Concerns over the process itself, and issues that have arisen during negotiations seem to be adequately addressed in other parts of the article.
I included the Treaty of Versailles only as an example. I assume it should not be controversial to say that ACTA is not as historically notable or important as the treaty that ended WWI, so I assumed it was appropriate to compare the two negotiation sections on length, breadth, and depth. I don't know what you mean when you say that article is a stub, as it is rather lengthy and comprehensive. Since that example hasn't convinced you, check out the negotiation sections for other international intellectual property treaties: Berne Convention, TRIPS, or the Universal Copyright Convention. Wikipedia has a List of treaties you can look through too for other examples. I've only gone through a handful of the major ones, but I have yet to come across one that goes into details of the negotiation process with the same depth, breadth, and length as this one.
That is my explanation for the good faith edit I made. Your assertion that it is unclear what parties will eventually sign to the treaty is not conveyed any better by the section as it stands now than by the edit I made. Your assertion that it is important to have such a detailed, blow-by-blow description of the negotiation process for this treaty because it is a proposed treaty is one I dispute. Again, I fail to see how the section as it is now serves that purpose better than the edit I made.
Hartboy (talk) 17:49, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
Hi there, I did not assume that it was a bad faith edit. I took it from your comment above that you removed the text because you thought it is trivia, which it is not. Again, some of the examples you site are clearly stubs and starts.
This article is currently graded as C, that is:
"The article is substantial, but is still missing important content or contains a lot of irrelevant material. The article must have a defined structure - this includes a lead section, one or more sections of content, as well as a section dedicated to providing references (to sources of information used). The article should be free from major grammatical errors, and should also contain supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams."
Ideally it should move to B, which is:
"Commonly the highest article grade that is assigned outside a more formal review process. Satisfies all C-class criteria, but also has a majority of the material needed for a comprehensive article. At minimum, it should also have some references to reliable sources. Nonetheless, it has some gaps or missing elements or references, needs editing for language usage or clarity, balance of content, or contains other policy problems such as copyright, Neutral Point Of View (NPOV) or No Original Research (NOR)."
Given that treaties are generally not very well covered in wikipedia, and this must be the only article on a draft treaty (guess that is because it has been a draft treaty for so long and is notable as per wikipedia criteria), I think it is very difficult to take guidance from other treaty articles, particularly if they have been classified as start or stub. 2009 United Nations Climate Change Conference is a B class article, and is quite detailed on the negotiations, so it is not like details of negotiation are "trivial, irrelevant, and unencyclopedic chaff".
The negotiation section is not a "complete exposition of all possible details" and neither is it a blow by blow account of the negotiations. It is simply a list of the location rounds and dates, with some info on the participating countries and for two of the rounds there is a bit more detail. Though the fact that each negotiation round has its own heading makes it look quite long. Maybe the solution is to take the section headings out and make it one section, then it should be about 3 paras, which is not unreasonable given the level of detail in the rest of the article.--SasiSasi (talk) 18:19, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
Your proposed solution is precisely what I did. I removed the subheadings and consolidated the remaining text. Some sentences were removed since they were included in other parts of the article. For example, the sentence "the idea to create a plurilateral agreement on counterfeiting was developed by Japan and the United States in 2006" is a verbatim repetition from the lead of the article. I removed the paragraph about InternetNZ because it is sourced to InternetNZ's site. Where participants between different rounds were the same, I saw no need for repeating that information; for example, why bother saying "participants in the 5th round were Australia, Canada, the EU... participants in the 6th round were Australia, Canada, the EU..."? Other edits were admittedly a judgment call. For example, the second and fourth rounds are merely stating that they occurred, the date, and the location. There's no real argument that stating it that way rather than the way I stated it is better or worse. I just took the view that those sentences added little to the understanding of the subject of the article, provided no context, and are akin to listing every motion made in a court trial, or every congressional action taken in legislation, or every press release issued by a company.
In any event, you had no basis for reverting the edit. If you had any concerns with the edit, they should have been addressed here. I am reimplementing my edits. If you feel there was any information I took out that belongs, than make those edits without reverting the article, and if you have additional concerns, than continue the discussion here.
Hartboy (talk) 19:16, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
Hi there, the lead is suppose to summarise information that is in the article, so all information that is in the lead should technically be in the article. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (lead section):

"The lead must conform to verifiability and other policies. The verifiability policy advises that material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, and quotations, should be cited. Because the lead will usually repeat information also in the body, editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material. Leads are usually written at a greater level of generality than the body, and information in the lead section of non-controversial subjects is less likely to be challenged and less likely to require a source; there is not, however, an exception to citation requirements specific to leads. The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus. Complex, current, or controversial subjects may require many citations; others, few or none. Contentious material about living persons must be cited every time, regardless of the level of generality."

So you cant just cut information that is in the lead out of the article.
You have not just cut out the info you stated above, you have cut 90 percent of the information, see [4]. I dont think cutting large chunks of refernced and relevant information out of an article, trying to cite various wikipedia policies, is very productive.
I will have a go at taking out the section headings, maybe we can vut the section down without removing relevant information.--SasiSasi (talk) 20:08, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I have cut the section headings out without cutting out any of the information that was previously in the article. Section now looks a whole lot shorter, so it looks more balanced within the article. Please dont just remove referenced and relevant information that is in the article.--SasiSasi (talk) 20:22, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Hartboy, stop removing bits of the text without explanation, it is relevant and referenced. Re the self published sources, they are not in themselves prohibited, and many of the sources in this article are self-published, such as the various EU press releases and explanatory documents. Please explain how what is in the article does not comply with Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources before removing it.--SasiSasi (talk) 19:12, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

With all due respect, 'stop editing' is the opposite of Wikipedia's collaborative approach. Additionally, I have provided explanations of all my edits. Reflexively undoing all my edits, on the other hand, solves nothing. I have consistently provided explanations for all my recent edits, along with relevant Wikipedia guidelines and policies to back up the explanations. Your response has boiled down to 'keep the article as it is regardless of any policy.'
This article suffers from POV. The statements themselves are properly sourced, but many specific instances of criticism toward the treaty are given undue weight.
The excerpt I removed is one example of such an instance. The policy on self-published sources is "Websites and publications of trading companies, organizations and charities are a marketing communication channel and should be treated with caution. These media can be used for primary data about the organization's view of itself and may have clear bias related to commercial interests." We both agree that the excerpt, describing the view of InternetNZ, was properly sourced under that guideline. However, it is my contention that including the view of InternetNZ itself may be undue weight. Clearly, a Wikipedia article shouldn't mention each and every viewpoint on a specific subject, only those that are relevant. The solution here, rather than reverting a good faith edit, would be to find a reliable secondary-source of the relevance of InternetNZ's viewpoint. I've done that for you.
I appreciate that you've taken a good deal of time and effort to develop the bulk of this article, but remember that Wikipedia is a collaborative effort. My edits are solely to improve this article along the lines of the core policies of NPOV and verifiability. Unilaterally undo-ing good faith efforts accompanied with explanation goes against the spirit of the site.
Hartboy (talk) 21:28, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Hartboy, your deletion of the material rather than returning to your prior position of citation required to show that international treaties have precedence over local laws was not necessary. It seems to be a stronger response than necessary. If you disagree, then at least you can return to your prior position instead of simply deleting the entire content and prevent futher discussion of the material. This type of modified edit warring with unilateral deletion goes against the spirit of the site.AnimeJanai (talk) 22:10, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

The portion I removed in the lead refers to a draft agreement that isn't yet finished as a "treaty". There's not a citation on the planet that can support that because it's impossible. Hartboy (talk) 00:33, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
I agree with your change as based upon the technicality that the "treaty" wording has not been finalized, but as you can probably realize, the parties putting the Treaty together (organizing committee, meeting attendees, and the officially-sanctioned industry representatives) are almost certainly going to create a "treaty" that does NOT have a NPOV towards existing freedoms or court decisions. As was clarified at New Zealand by the New Zealand government, ACTA is about removing roadblocks that prevent IP rights holders from legally enforcing their will both cheaply and quickly. Previous attempts to do that such as self-destructing software or software that disabled the PC or erased the hard drive were not legal from various court decisions. That has implications on mandated ISP patrolling of users, hardware changes, software changes, laws enforcement, shifting most violation enforcement from civil into criminal court cases, lower requirements for search warrants or seizure, current restrictions on implementing terms of UCITA (also not ratified), etc. The removal of those roadblocks would make UCITA possible as it is held up mostly by contradictions against existing court decisions on fair use. At that instant of ratification, because treaties have precedence, that would mean any terms in ACTA that contradicted existing court decisions would then overcome those court decisions already made upon fair use, backups, or merchantability beyond the first owner, etc. The article will hopefully realize a tie-in to UCITA in the way it may enable UCITA to make use of future features of CPU chips to enforce laws. | Intel recently announced that their future processors will address theft or improper use by having the ability to either disable the PC or erase content from the hard drive without the consent of the current operator of the PC by receiving signals from either G3 wireless or internet communications.[3] In preparation for the ratification of the treaty, I will see about adding more citations to the Policy Laundering article to help firm it up as a citation. That way, it will be more obvious as a reference without making people who follow references go thru some hoops to see why the references are applicable. Policy laundering takes advantage of treaties having priority over existing state or federal court decisions in the USA, and I hope that I don't have to cite that in the article since it should be readily understood by anyone who has taken civics courses in school (I remember mine). I didn't want to make this ACTA article into one of those monstrosities where almost every sentence has a citation just because it can. The reader should have the responsibility to know at least some of the basic or "normal" things and not always compel the wikipedia contributor to take complete responsibility and assume the reader knows nothing by having citations for each and every tiny or basic thing.AnimeJanai (talk) 01:35, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
You don't need citations for "tiny or basic" things, but none of what you mentioned above is "tiny or basic." For example, the statement that treaties have "priority over existing state or federal court decisions in the USA" is merely incorrect. "Substantial uncertainty... reigns in the Court over the preemptive force of treaties." (Michael Van Alstine, Federal Common Law in an Age of Treaties, 89 Cornell L. Rev. 892 (2004)). Hartboy (talk) 03:43, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

What does ACTA actually implement?

This Article is very informative on the History, Negotiations and Leakage of the treaty, but It doesn't inform the casual reader of what ACTA actually implements, IE: what kind of laws it will impose, without requiring the reader to click on a few external links. Someone should Include a section of what ACTA actually does. The best sentence of Information is "The scope of ACTA is broad, including counterfeit goods, generic medicines and copyright infringement on the Internet." This should be elaborated.

Wikipedia is in on the conspiracy as well.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:32, 30 August 2010 (UTC) 

Agreed, further more, is ACTA even law yet? Why doesn't this article clearly state if and when. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:56, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

News on this?

Looks like there are new about this that should be included on the article (but I am don't know enought about this to do it). --Sbassi (talk) 13:22, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

"According to European Union officials, a final deal was expected within weeks."[6]

Obviously needs an update.-- (talk) 18:40, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

new link

Thank you for this Article on ACTA. As (correctly) stated in this Article, Switzerland is a negotiating Party. Accordingly, I would like to suggest to add an external link to the relevant Swiss website, which is the website of the Swiss Federal Institute of Intellectual Property (IPI) . The IPI is the competent governmental agency, its site provides for actual information on ACTA. Thank you for considering my proposal. Lena New (talk) 16:21, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Trans-Pacific Agreement ?!

Seems like something similar is going on between the US. and Pacific countries ... Stanjourdan (talk) 10:08, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

lifting the indefinite Semi-protection

The media attention has dropped, so it should be time to look if the protection should be lifted so unregistered and newly registered users can make contributions to the article.Belorn (talk) 05:34, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

 Done The Helpful One 18:40, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Maybe it should be reinstated since it's been brought up again? The first sentence right now, before I go edit it out, contains "...(aka d-bags who ant to ruin everybodies internet)" (talk) 00:42, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
It is quite clear that when acta is up on the news, the vandalism starts again. Belorn (talk) 17:58, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
Irrelevant. Locking Wikipedia pages is typically a reactionary measure, not a preventative one. The editing on the article for the past week has been relatively tame and within normal limits, so there's no reason to needlessly restrict who can edit the page (a bit of an interesting choice given the goals of SOPA, PIPA and ACTA, methinks). elektrikSHOOS (talk) 08:10, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

So what exactly would it do?

I didn't find any particular mention about *what* it plans to change (several countries have signed it already, so it must have been fully formulated by now). It's a threat to human rights and has sparked lots of criticism, so there should be more information on it, rather than some general info about signing and leaks. And way too much jargon. The article seems biased towards the agreement, making it look like good and noble and something every country should sign. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:52, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Just because the article is not ultra negative does not mean its bias. The article actually seems very unbias in the good sense. It seems to me that you dont actually want an unbias article but just want an anti ACTA tone throughout the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:32, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

tbh, I think he's right. This is quite biased...It only tells us who is against it and why... if we wanted to know that, we'd read the news. There's no information about what changes the treaty actually means. The PDF's are too politically correct for the common man to understand. It puts the protesters in a bad light and makes them look like they're all whining corporations that want free stuff whilst in my internet research i've found that the treaty is more than just piracy... I came to wikipedia to see what the deal is. My bad (talk) 02:40, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
The few things that can be described as neutral and objective facts about the changes the treaty introduce are under the Legal framework and Treaty content sections. The rest are as any other political subjet about the changes the treaty introduce as precived by different parties. That said, the Criticism section should be weaved into the Positions section, and the article need a bit of updating about the final version. Belorn (talk) 06:58, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

New version of ACTA released

Since ACTA is supposed to be signed by Poland on the 26th of January 2012, the nowadays official version has been released. It's available at the site of the Polish Ministry of Foreign Affairs, more precisely : . The PDF is quite big, since the text is stored as images. The English version starts on page 57. — Preceding unsigned comment added by XAVeRY (talkcontribs) 15:40, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

This is the final text since 15 November 2010 available as a normal text PDF on EC's site. Tokenzero (talk) 10:34, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
I looked for the PDF of the treaty text at that web site, and do not immediately see it. The page I see is largely pro-ACTA advertising, with many links. The few, most obvious, candidate links I have checked do not seme to have it. Can you give a complete link to the pdf? Thanks. Wwheaton (talk) 04:06, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Completely below is the "external links" section, which gives a link to the final version. Furhtermore the full txt is available here on wikisource: s:Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement. L.tak (talk) 05:12, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

UN's opinion?

What's UN's opinion on this? Who knows about it? What are the chances ACTA gets archived or banned overall? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:59, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Probability is virtually zero-chance. The UN may look over this treaty and some member states object to it, but that will have no impact whatsoever on what the signatories of the treaty do. HammerFilmFan (talk) 03:30, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Map & EU.

The map may be clearer with a color for the EU. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:55, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

What do you suggest exactly? We need to distinguish EU, but also show what individual countries did, so I guess we need 2 colours as is the case now! L.tak (talk) 10:46, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 30 January 2012

Please remove Mike Masnick of Techdirt noted that the handmade masks were themselves symbolically "counterfeit," as Time Warner owns intellectual property rights to the masks and typically expects royalties for their depiction. from Polish parliament section. The cited source is a popular blog and definitely not reliable. It is not clear whether the producers of that mask pay any royalties or not. It is just a speculation and definitely not neutral to present it as facts. The second source from Times doesn't say that Polish parliament wearing of that mask is an act of "counterfeiting". (talk) 04:11, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

 Done by user:CMBJ. If there are further remarks, just make them in this section... L.tak (talk) 10:48, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Not done WP:SPS says: "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." Masnick is a relatively authorative commentator in this area of expertise; in the past, he's been cited alongside conventional media sources by Congresspeople, referenced in intellectual property proceedings before the Library of Congress, and has even made his way into a WIPO journal.   — C M B J   12:59, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

map does not match article

article says south korea signed, but map does not show south korea in magenta; is that intentional? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:36, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

That is an error indeed. I will correct (but not immediately unfortunately). L.tak (talk) 10:45, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Introduction section edit request

Could you please fix a statement "The agreement was signed on 1 October 2010 ..." - the date should be 1 October 2011. () Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:09, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

 Done , and thanks for pointing us to it! L.tak (talk) 10:43, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit request: Protests

As of 30 January 2012 there are almost 300 thousands online signatures calling for a referendum on ACTA in Poland - (in polish) and almost 1 million signatures against ACTA worldwide -
200 thousands "referendum" signatures were documented by PAP (Polish Press Agancy) and cited/published by major polish news portals WP and ONET (in polish):,Zebralismy-200-tys-podpisow-za-referendum-ws-ACTA,wid,14205127,wiadomosc.html,18515,5010615,1,news-detal

I didn't find any press info on petition but maybe someone else will be able to. 1M signatures looks pretty notable to me in its own right.

[EDIT] Another data point: Polish news portal INTERIA.PL reports that 1.8 million emails were sent to polish politicians as an act of on-line referendum organized by INTERIA and RMF FM. 97% of said emails were against ACTA -,1752654,7906 (talk) 14:29, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

 Done.   — C M B J   23:29, 30 January 2012 (UTC)


Some of the articles criticizing ACTA are no longer valid, due to changes in the document, but are presented as still being addressed to the current version of the document. There should be a more clear separation between criticism of the current/signed version and criticism of earlier versions or drafts. Virtually all of the criticism is based on 2008 versions, and the quoted articles aren't there anymore. The resolution adopted by the European Parliament on 10 March 2010, on article 11. talks about "a three strike policy" that (1) is not precent in current ACTA and (2)is "calling for the insertion of a new paragraph 3(a) in Article 1 of Directive 2002/21/EC" where as Wikipedia Article quotes it "changes in the ACTA content and the process should be made". (talk) 07:05, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

An important note

All source material preceding 15 November 2010 should be evaluated with meticulous care and due diligence, as this is when the final official text was released.   — C M B J   05:55, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Why is Poland protesting?

This article does not explain (at least in an easily readable way) why Poland is protesting this. This is one of several articles I've seen as of late that leaves readers with unanswered questions. Concise verbiage is needed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:57, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Can you write a bit of a blurb covering it here on the talkpage, so we can put it in. You don't need to do a good job, and as it is in no way controversial to say there are protests in poland I can't see anyone tagging it with a citation needed just yet. Penyulap talk 12:38, 9 February 2012 (UTC)


I actually knew that a rapporteur is not a reporter but I had to look up Depositary. Shouldn't we at least have a redirect for that? -- (talk) 15:20, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Not done Would be nice, but we don't even have a page onthat in wikipedia! L.tak (talk) 10:48, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 Done New article created.   — C M B J   12:10, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
It needs explanation within the article. Approachable language is the norm, bad writing style requires the reader look up other articles or use a dictionary. Penyulap talk 12:36, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Addition to Petitions sequence

As for Feb. 9th anti-ACTA petition directed at Estonian people has reached over 6000 signatures. Yersinia12 (talk) 17:03, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Susta resolution

Already the Susta resolution from 2008 called for transparency of the documents. You find it linked on -- (talk) 22:36, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Do I understand correctly it is the info present in the "disclosure" section or is this something else? L.tak (talk) 22:55, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Criminal Chapter and essentiality

FFII Press Release 5.1.2011 requesting whether measures are "essential"-- (talk) 22:39, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

that might be interesting (along with other organizations discussing this). We do need however reliable independent sources (newspapers etc) reporting this release. Do you have a linkf or that? L.tak (talk) 22:56, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

A bit more about David Martin

Could someone add a little bit of informations about David Martin's opinions and his previous votes and actions concerning the ACTA related subjects (generic drugs, online privacy, copyright enforcement etc...)?

I think most of this informations should be added to David Martin's article.

Ereinon (talk) 11:37, 13 February 2012 (UTC)


The website does not collect legitimate signatures for referendum, in Poland gathering signatures for any political purpose can on be done in the "old" way by means of paperwork.
Additionally the website does not collect all necessary data to make it legitimate (it lacks PESEL number which is necessary to prove ones identity in Poland)
Guys organizing a legitimate anti-acta offensive made this website:
unfortunately they have "only" 300.000 signatures as far while 500.000 are needed to force a referendum in Poland. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kubatoja2 (talkcontribs) 18:14, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Blatant POV pushing

The whole lede of the article is a textbook example of POV pushing. First, per WP:MOS it's way too long. And the reason why it's too long cuz someone saw fit to cram in as much as "so-and-so opposes it", "opponents have argued..." "opponents have also criticized..." and so and so forth. Seriously, this is as an unbalanced instance of POV pushing as I've seen.VolunteerMarek 00:17, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Could you specify a bit more in depth what you mean. If you consider it too long, what sections should be removed/shortened, or is it the lead that you have issue with? Belorn (talk) 00:46, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
As I already said above, yes, it's the lede. For now.VolunteerMarek 01:03, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
I wouldn't call it POV pushing because the opposition makes up the bulk of the issue's notable coverage. The lede however is too long. PeRshGo (talk) 01:05, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
You don't think it overdoing it? Usually in these kinds of articles the concerned parties have the decency to put in a sentence or two in the lede and save all that stuff for a bulky "Criticisms" section. Just saying, that's how POV pushing is USUALLY done. Here it's just over the top.VolunteerMarek 05:59, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, must been too tired and missed it :). Anyway, The ideal approach is to integrate the negative criticism into the article: negative information is woven throughout the article in the appropriate topical sections (wp:Criticism). So the criticism do belong there, but the historical information like when the preliminary talks and Official negotiations took place might better be outside the lead section. The text about the draft text leaks might also be unnecesary in a lead as it does not look to be most important aspects of the article. Last, the Polish signing of the treaty might also be moved down. Belorn (talk) 10:51, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
Wanted to give a heads up that the page desperately needs some coverage/analysis of the recent treaty content - there's literally zilch on the page right now, pretty much all the analysis or summarization of content is of the outdated drafts. And until the body of the page is complete and neutral, getting the lead that way will be pretty impossible. I've had trouble finding good english dissections in the media Sloggerbum (talk) 22:22, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
I'm trying to summarize criticism from major organizations on the Polish Wikipedia here, you may find it a good coverage of the final content, in particular the references, as they're almost all in English and include key quotations from significant sources. Tokenzero (talk) 15:05, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Something a bit fresh

Hi, I'm here cause I was bribed :) (bento next time ok? ) Can I suggest clearer approachable language, lets start off shoving all the lede into a section called overview, links and all, same as we did on sopa, then like this

  • Dump "The Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) is a proposed plurilateral agreement for the purpose of establishing international standards on intellectual property rights enforcement."
  • Dump It would establish an international legal framework for countries to join voluntarily,
  • Dump The scope of ACTA includes counterfeit goods, generic medicines and copyright infringement on the Internet.
  • Go with something like "The Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement ACTA is a voluntary international agreement to make uniform intellectual property rights laws including copyright. It effects name brand and counterfeit goods and medicines, as well as copyright infringement on the internet and in smartphones and mp3 players."

For Volunteer Marek's concerns, instead of just summarizing the article section by section like for sopa, how about we summarize for and against into roughly equal sized parts of the lede ? Because yes, all the notable stuff is the opposition because they do funny protests people love to watch and everyone falls asleep listening to the hot air, so understandably it's not in the article. But lets cover both sides shall we ? that way I can get my Bento ! (nod) (hint) (Should I call the section blatant bento pushing ? too far ?) Penyulap talk 15:05, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

+1, but it might be hard to cover both sides equally without just writing section by section what it's supposed to protect - I tried to read EC and Polish responses and it's basically repeating over and over that it doesn't require any change, that there's no way legitimate medicine could be targeted and that there are sooo many guarantees like the non-binding preamble's reference to Doho and the undefined fundamental right to fair process. There's some interesting content in the "older" legal opinion of the EP Legal Service, 5 October 2011 (released to the public on December 19 after pressure from FFII), though, that might be considered the official EP stance. Tokenzero (talk) 15:33, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
In general, I think its a good idea to put the current lead into a section, and make a new short lead that breifly present what ACTA is, its purpose, and a very summery of the opposition to it, and lastly a short summery of the controversy around the negotiations. But please do not call acta an agreement to make uniform copyright laws. Acta is about intellectual property rights enforcement which extends over much more than just copyright. Belorn (talk) 22:29, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Any better, any suggestions? Penyulap talk 19:30, 27 January 2012 (UTC)


orphan from lead, some discussion outline [4]

Rewrite as per ITN comments

I've rewritten the lead essentially from scratch, as the other was more or less at an unworkable point. The original content has been moved to a new section titled background, which is a more appropriate designation for that text.   — C M B J   23:44, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Very nicely done. I would like to see the notable/infamous secrecy of the negotiations being mentioned in the lead but beyond that its a extreme improvement over the last lead. Belorn (talk) 11:25, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

MPAA comments

I checked the link to the quote from the MPAA in regard to blocking sites that embarrass the government; the article which is cited provides no verification of any such claim and was written in February 2012 regarding a comment allegedly made in 2010. I recommend deleting the section or at the very least adding an [unverified claim] with recommendation for future deletion if not verified. note also, that the author of the article cited has been requested by users to substantiate the claim, but has not responded in over three days. Sonofchihuahua (talk) 03:41, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Czech government suspended process of ratification Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 22:41, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Shouldn't that be "ratification by six MORE states?" Came looking for when it goes into affect/effect, but that missing word left it just a bit ambiguous. Thanks. CarolMooreDC 07:03, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Nope. At the moment, this is a two-stage process. There is signature (indicating intent to be bound to the treaty) which well over 6 did) and subsequent ratification (accepting the obligations formally). Entry into force requires 6 ratifications and signatures don't count; so we don't have an entry into force date (yet?) (and even without all the delays/stops announced now: probably will not have one in the next year as these things take substantial time)L.tak (talk) 09:13, 18 February 2012 (UTC)


Just finishing up the split-proposal procedure... It has been proposed to split the "protests" section into a separate article. I think that is a good idea, as the article is on the long side, and this section is prone to growing. Please discuss here its merits. L.tak (talk) 19:16, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

  • agree, as I just wrote the rationale... L.tak (talk) 19:16, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Disagree. This article isn't yet unmanageably large and that section is not long enough yet to merit a separate article. Any reasonable summary of the protests to remain here would be a large fraction of the current section. I would suggest gradual trimming and editing of this article instead, if size is a concern. henriktalk 16:04, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Nope the article needs better writing, not fragmentation. (talk) 12:52, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

EU Countries that signed this treaty

Hello. I came to the page in order to find out which countries signed this treaty and which ones did not. (I want to find out where the traitors are strongest.) Could someone add this to the article somewhere please? (talk) 09:16, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

"EU and its Member States that signed the Agreement at this ceremony are: the EU, Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxemburg, Malta, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden and the United Kingdom" Sauce: — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:00, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

 Done yesterday... L.tak (talk) 10:49, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Which countries signed or did not sign is just another masquerade, in order to make the country which benefits the most from this look like the good guys. In reality this would be another step towards achieving in Europe what the British achieved in the Americas. And the Poles can see this. Anon26593 (talk) 01:54, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Bulgaria will hold ACTA ratification until other EU member states decisions, said Traicho Traykov, Minister of Economy, Energy and Tourism. See more at yalamov (talk) 12:08, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

 Done, added to the signatures and ratifications paragraph. Thanks! L.tak (talk) 17:49, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Bulgarian government officially stopped ratification procedure on 15/02/2012. See more at — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:39, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for mentioning that. the info is added to the signatures and ratifications paragraph L.tak (talk) 15:06, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Also Austria declined: -- (talk) 11:28, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

this article is crap

It is incredibly long and somehow avoids any substantive description of its topic. What the hell guys, give the protests their own article and maybe mention what the damn treaty does. -- 00:25, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Agree, I put template:Split section for creation of article Protests against ACTA. --Aleksd (talk) 18:28, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Also the information here is insufficient. --Aleksd (talk) 18:31, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Good point. This is a historically grown article and not too clear /structured. It is improving though slowly but surely... My suggestion: get an account, edit some other pages and before you know it, you can join us in improving the article. Unfortunately very new users + not logged in users can not edit now because of excessive vandalism to this page... L.tak (talk) 09:45, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Semi-protection was actually removed as per a request I made yesterday. Not sure how long it'll be able to stay this way, but the opportunity is there for now.   — C M B J   04:13, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree, the article is written in a confuse, overly extended and less understanding way than it should be. For readers which are non-native English talking and who try to read in english Wikipedia (because their own languaje versions are "crap"), it would be very nice to have an introduction section that puts it all in SIMPLE, people friendly terms. The worldwide inplications of this subject deserve it. Amclaussen, Mexico. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:14, 2 February 2012 (UTC)


What a surprise: usually I don't bother to go into the Spanish version of Wikipedia, because it is frequently an incomplete and defective translation of the English page, but just for curiosity, I have just checked the spanish version of this article... It was a huge nice surprise to find its introduction VERY clear and Strightforward, TO THE POINT; it says literally:

ACTA (del inglés Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement, traducido como Acuerdo comercial anti-falsificación) es un acuerdo multilateral voluntario que propone fijar protección y respaldo a la propiedad intelectual, casi de modo autocrático en la medida de que define lo que sí es permitido y lo que no, dígase de esto último todo lo que viole algún copyright, llegando a multar o incluso a enjuiciar el intento de esto. Principalmente, las empresas beneficiadas son las RIAA y MPAA, desvirtuando a entidades como Twitter, Youtube, Deviantart, Google, Wikipedia,etc. por almacenar contenido con derechos protegidos u otorgados a un autor específico, por lo tanto, restringe la libertad de expresión. Which means, more or less: "ACTA (from english Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement) which translates like Acuerdo comercial anti-falsificación) It is a voluntary multilateral that proposes to assign protection and support to intellectual property, almost in an Autocratic way, to the extent that it defines what is Allowed and what is Forbidden, this last one referring to anything that violates anything that is copyrighted, even reaching fining or even subjecting to Prosecution of the intent of it. The main enterprises that are to be benefited from this are RIAA and MPAA, detracting from entities like Twitter, YouTube, Deviantart, Google, Wikipedia, etc. which store contents with protected rights or rights conferred to an specific author, thus restricting freedom of expression".

Now, THAT is fully UNDERSTANDABLE. Could you clarify the english article like the Spanish one? Amclaussen, Mexico. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:46, 2 February 2012 (UTC)


This article is teeming with claims regarding ACTA without actually refering to the articles that can substantiate these claims. Encyclopedic content must be verifiable (it says so right on the page I'm writing this)... The most concerning claims are about criticism regarding "Threats to freedom and fundamental human rights". Can anyone actually mention the articles that pose this kind of threat please? Also, under "Border searches", it says that ACTA allows "agents to conduct random searches of electronic devices". Can anyone point out to these articles as well please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:41, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

yellow tickY Partly done. "Potentially adverse effects on fundamental civil and digital rights, including freedom of expression and communication privacy" now substantiated with up-to-date material from European Digital Rights and the Foundation for a Free Information Infrastructure.   — C M B J   23:42, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
Wow, that is good stuff in the Spanish article, actually the word autocratic is fantastic. I mean there is a huge swathe going into the secrecy of the negotiations, and describing how the public has no say at all, and FOI requests fail and so forth, and what better way to stuff it all into one word, when you think about it, it's the perfect summary, it all fits perfectly, very approachable, understandable, simple. If nobody has any objection, I'll support that and put it in. I'll also clean up a bit more of the lead by moving things into the article so it's not so cramped and reads easier. Nothing deleted mind you. The more we can find fair precise easy to understand summaries like that, the more room there is in the lead for points that have been missed. Penyulap talk 06:58, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
We might be able to include some things; but our lead is quite factual I'd say... But with the right sources I don't object to include things that were missed... L.tak (talk) 07:18, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
Argh! I just rewrote the lead, so I'm not sure if you mean the new or the old, if you don't mind, can you have a look at it now and tell me what you like, what you don't, or if overall, it's easier for most other readers (don't forget not everyone knows all about this stuff) Penyulap talk 07:48, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
No problem, you did well I think apart from a few details. I have no time to work on it now, so let me just give my comments in shorthand: the sentence on that it infringes on fundamental rights is a bit POV-stated and can be more neutral. The description of autocratic would need a ref. sorry for being not very detailed, but I think the idea is clear... L.tak (talk) 08:45, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
I softened up both bits of text, I dumped the word autocratic even though I found a ref for it, basically I wasn't overwhelmed by a deluge of refs, so I went with secretive instead, if the article mentions it once it mentions it 100 times, so it's a no brainier. The lede looks a lot better without the references in it, they are all in the article, and the language of the lede is better, but do please polish it up however you see fit. Penyulap talk 11:25, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 10 February 2012

In January 2012, the European Union and 22 of its member states signed as well, bringing the total number of signatories to 31. This statement is wrong, it should say The European Union and 22 of its member Countries singed as well, not states. We do not have states in Europe, they are individual countries. So please change: In January 2012, the European Union and 22 of its member states signed as well, bringing the total number of signatories to 31, to: In January 2012, the European Union and 22 of its member countires signed as well, bringing the total number of signatories to 31. (talk) 05:52, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Not done: Translations and interpretations for state and country are wide all over the world; it certainly here doesn't imply there is a "United States of Europe" with states that are not sovereign (as US states). The used term: member states implies sovereign states and is widely used. For example in the article: member states of the European Union, so I don't think it is very wrong here... L.tak (talk) 08:02, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Doesn't hurt to use a less technical term that is still perfectly understandable. Penyulap talk 12:59, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
True, but is a country really less technical than a state (especially in Europe where some people live in the country England eithin the countr/state United Kingdom)? L.tak (talk) 17:03, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Well, I think that state and country have very different meanings in many parts of the world, depends where you are as to what it means. As far as I recall, Germany, India and I think Brazil are all divided into geographic sections called states. You'd call those states by other names in other countries, some places it's a province, some places a prefecture(Japan) or maybe a county. Then there are headache countries like the united states, where they were pretty much countries first as states and merged into a single state, and the UK which is weird too. Mexico is divided into states also. Anyhow, if you think about everyone around the world when you are writing and then pick words they will all understand, your writing will be very good quality. It will be in line with the appropriate policy too, it's a minor thing, a very natural thing many editors forget or are just not aware of. Penyulap talk 06:43, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Protest counts

The protest counts are off. I don't know about the other countries, but the protests in Germany were held on the 11th, not the 13th, and there were more than 100.000 participants according to and about 50.000 according to the german police. The article given as a source in the wikipedia article states that there were 16.000 in Munich alone (which is the official Police count) - so how could there have been only 25.000 in all of Germany? If the counts in Germany are off, it stands to reason that those in other countries are, too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:42, 20 February 2012 (UTC)  Done Penyulap talk 04:13, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

EU Commission refers ACTA to the European Court of Justice

On 22 February 2012, the European Commission asks the European Court of Justice to assess whether the ACTA agreement violates the EU's fundamental human rights and freedoms [5], thereby effectively putting the ratification process on hold for all EU countries [6]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:21, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

  1. ^ "SECURE Draft (Feb. 2008)" (PDF). World Customs Organization (WCO). February 2008. 
  2. ^ Herman, Bill D. & Oscar H. Gandy, Jr. (2008). "Catch 1201: A Legislative History and Content Analysis of the DMCA Exemption Proceedings". Cardozo Arts & Entertainment Law Journal. 
  3. ^ Ashok Bindra (15 Sept 2010). "Intel Details Second Generation Core Processor Architecture at IDF 2010". TMCnet.  Check date values in: |date= (help)
  4. ^ USTR. "The Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement – Summary of Key Elements Under Discussion" (PDF). Retrieved 25 November 2009 
  5. ^
  6. ^

Media Conflict of Interest

It seems to me that this article needs some mention of the fact that the commercial media have a conflict of interest in this kind of governmental action. In late December, I attempted to add a comment to this effect to the Stop Online Piracy Act article. That addition was reverted on the grounds that it needed a citation from a serious, quality academic source. That seemed nonsense to me, because that should be obvious from the definition of conflict of interest. However, I responded by beefing up the examples, including a discussion of the media. That subsection begins by noting that the Wikimedia Foundation itself has a conflict of interest on issues like this, because they could be directly impacted. Lawrence Lessig in Free Culture (book) has meticulously documented how major media corporations have (a) lobbied successfully to expand copyright law in 5 different dimensions (duration, scope, reach, control and concentration), and have further filed lawsuits that have the effect of limiting "the Progress of Science and useful Arts,", contrary to the purpose of intellectual property as stated in the Constitution of the United States. As noted by Lessig, Steamboat Willie, the first commercial success for Mickey Mouse could have been blocked under today's copyright environment as a "derivative work" of Buster Keaton's silent film Steamboat Bill, Jr. The definition of "derivative work" is now so vague that almost anything could be considered a "derivative work" of something that is copyrighted. Clearly, major commercial media corporations not only have a conflict of interest in this issue, they have acted on that conflict of interest to the general detriment of free markets, as explained by Lessig. A few days ago, I added a comment to that effect to this ACTA article. That edit was reverted roughly 4 hours later, claiming I was trying to publish WP:OR. I do not understand this. DavidMCEddy (talk) 20:49, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you *very* much for your recent comment on my User Page -
Your "added text" in the lede and my "edit summary" for reverting are as follows:

Your "Added Text" in the lede ->
"The media conglomerates have a strong financial incentive to minimize and distort public discussion of ACTA, both because of their large copyright portfolios and the fact that they could lose revenue from providing information that could displease major advertisers."
My "Edit Summary" for reverting ->
"rv edit - afaik many may agree w/ pov - nonetheless, edit seems like WP:OR - some reliable cited ref source(s) may be helpful?"

I continue to think that your statement would be better served with some reliable cited reference(s) for support - afaik at the moment, the use of uncited, unsupported text material is discouraged in Wikipedia - esp in articles, such as ACTA and related, that may be of interest to so many at the moment - other Wikipedia editors may have a different view and/or position - I would welcome their opinions on this matter if possible - in any case - hope this helps - thanks again - and - enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 23:40, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply and especially for providing the text that you reverted. In fact, the Conflict of interest#Media section includes 7 footnotes, 6 to serious academic research monographs and one to Business Week. However, I see now that a typo on my part made that unclear: I failed to capitalize "media" in that link, which had the effect of sending the reader to only the "Conflict of interest" article and not directly to the "Media" section of that article. Is this an adequate response to your concern about "uncited, unsuppported text"?
I agree that text about anything that is not obvious to most people should include references to solid sources. However, I'm still confused about your suggestion that this would even need a citation, as I would think it would be obvious from the definition: "A conflict of interest (COI) occurs when an individual or organization is involved in multiple interests, one of which could possibly corrupt the motivation for an act in the other." (copied from the opening line of the Conflict of interest article.) It should be obvious that all the large Media conglomerates have a large portfolios of copyrighted material, which would provide them with substantial financial interest in anything that might affect the revenue that could be extracted from a copyright. The fact that this is not obvious to you seems clear evidence of why a discussion of this is vital to any sensible understanding of this issue. Thanks again for your comments. DavidMCEddy (talk) 04:55, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
@DavidMCEddy - Thanks for your comments - please understand that my concern is not the issue itself - but more the "way" the issue is being presented - yes, your improvement may make the edited text better imo - but presenting this (or similar) text material by quoting, if possible, a WP:RS source, actually cited in the text, might be even better still I would think - as for myself, I have no objection for you re-posting this material (I don't expect to revert again) - nonetheless, comments from other Editors on this matter, before or after re-posting, might be helpful - in any case - thanks again - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 18:12, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
re "The media conglomerates have a strong financial incentive to minimize and distort public discussion of ACTA, both because of their large copyright portfolios and the fact that they could lose revenue from providing information that could displease major advertisers." about half of that seems pretty good on wording, but the other half might be improved for approachable (easy to read) language. May I suggest something like "(opponents say) media conglomerates have a strong financial incentive to distort and suppress press coverage of public discussion through their own outlets, to protect revenue from major advertisers." I think the COI could go elsewhere as it's kind of apparent, but definitely include it in this article, I think you'd use the template:see also in some press coverage type section for COI where you should expand on commentary about the COI. Penyulap talk 14:08, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for bringing this up! I think this should be suitable fro the the criticism section, if there is significant coverage of it (so we have reliable sources on it. It must be possible to find some, as luckily there are reliable sources outside media conglomerates (several smaller/individual newspapers, certain (open source) scientific journals; coverage of debates etcetc. Let's talk about the exact wording based on the source... L.tak (talk) 16:18, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
The Examples section of the article on Conflict of interest includes a discussion of the Media, which includes citations to six books, five being serious monographs by leading scholars and one that is a collection of research reports, plus one citation to Business Week. How can we mention this conflict of interest so it cites the appropriate section of the Conflict of interest article without getting distracted from the main point of this ACTA article? DavidMCEddy (talk) 02:02, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
Stick it in a note. See the notes section of the ISS article, I did that, so i can help you do something similar here if you'd like. But please make it easy by suggesting all the text and wording. in the section below you've mentioned a lot of related stuff, links to things that are related by not mentioned by officials or notable people go into the see also section, so go for it putting links in there. Penyulap talk 07:03, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Anti ACTA protests map

Hi. What is the meaning of the different colours used for the dots on the anti ACTA protests map? Best regards, Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 12:56, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Nothing. It is just to identify protests in different countries easier.... L.tak (talk) 17:29, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Protests in Poland

Don't have an account but protests in Poland were much larger than what is said on the website. Protests took place 25th, 26th and there is another protest in Warsaw today. In Krakow alone there was 15000 people. This is according to the PAP (Polish Press Agency). In total given protests took place in around 30 cities and at a minimum 1000 people were at each protest with ones in Wroclaw and Bydgoszcz counting 5000+ so we are talking of tens of thousands of people on the streets between 25th-26th. The big Warsaw protest takes place today (27th), so expect protests totalling at above 100000. NEWS IN POLISH,nId,431100 "W sumie wzięło w nich udział co najmniej kilkadziesiąt tysięcy ludzi." TRANSLATION: In total at least tens of thousands of people participated. Kraków: 15000 Wrocław, Bydgoszcz: 5000+ Katowice: 1000 Lodz: 2500+ Kielce: 2000 Gdynia: 2000,nId,430940 Poznań: 2000 MAP OF PROTESTS:,nId,430940 — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:29, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Two more things: one "Law and Justice" (PiS) did not call for referendum, i don't know where the Guardian got this info from but no such information was released on any tv or radio in Poland Second, the reatification process in Poland can not be "Suspended" - it is how Donald Tusk lies to the citizens to make him look better.Kubatoja2 (talk) 08:45, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

I would be really grateful if someone could verify the information from the Guardian about Law and Justice calling for referendum as noone i know has ever heard such thing and we are Polish. And Edit the info about "suspending" REATIFICATION IN POLAND CAN'T BE SUSPENDED!:,1733647,0,1,prawnik-pojecie-zawieszenia-ratyfikacji-nie-istnieje,wiadomosc.html that is one of many articles saying that.Kubatoja2 (talk) 08:45, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

And about the polish politicians who wore the masks it should be noticed that they are from the "Palikot's Movement" (Polish: Ruch Palikota) a political party, and when their leader (Janusz Palikot) with some of his fellow politicians tried to attend the demonstrations, he was jeered at, as the people who organized the protests never wanted to be linked with any political party and the fact that Janusz Palikot's movement was probably there only to gain in the eyes of the protesters even though they did not express their disapproval of ACTA before the protests increased in scale. for jeering at Janusz Palikot: for no connection with political parties(last line of the second paragraph):,8,title,Zobacz-co-wydarzylo-sie-przed-domem-Donalda-Tuska,wid,14215633,wiadomosc.html?ticaid=1ded4&_ticrsn=5 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kubatoja2 (talkcontribs) 18:06, 15 February 2012 (UTC) Kubatoja2 (talk) 08:45, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Wrong Bulgaria protest date

The protest section in the article, concerning Bulgaria, falsely states that the largest protest was held on 13 Feb. This is false: the protest was in conjunction with the coordinated European protests, and the date was 11 Feb. This can be clearly seen even on one of the sources (reference 136, in, where the news article is dated 11 Feb.

If the page was not protected, I'd have edited this myself, since I consider this a minor issue. (talk) 02:18, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

 Done (already some time ago...) L.tak (talk) 20:18, 11 March 2012 (UTC)


In line 9 is said, that ACTA affects the freedom of piracy. Is that a mistake? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:00, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

This problem with "line 9" seems to have been fixed. I assume we can remove it ... but I won't do it just now. DavidMCEddy (talk) 05:19, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Might it be appropriate here to mention that the protection provided by a copyright has been expanded substantially beginning in 1974, as noted by Lawrence Lessig in his book Free Culture? As noted in the Free Culture (book) article, major media actors have successfully gotten copyright law revised in ambiguous ways that the industry has exploited to stifle creativity and competition. This sounds like an outrageous claim. If you read Lessig, unless you are one of the major oligopolists in this industry, you will likely agree that the reality is outrageous, and the this summary accurately but tersely reflects this outrageous reality. Lessig's Republic, Lost documents how the set of problems documented in Free Culture (book) are only one of thousands of similar sets of problems produced by the corrupt political process in the US today. DavidMCEddy (talk) 05:19, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

...Only if we have reliable sources, making the link between ACTA and the book. If we do it ourselves, that would constitute original research, which is not allowed on wikipedia... L.tak (talk) 19:29, 11 March 2012 (UTC)


I have not seen this image anywhere other than Wikipedia. Why is it here? Or in the Anonymous article, for that matter? I think putting it here, implying that it is in some sense "official" violates WP:OR, not to mention it is plainly misleading. Please remove it. (talk) 17:44, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

 Done You seem to be right. I raised the issue at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(miscellaneous)/Archive_37#Wikipedia_vs._ACTA, but did not get a clear answer on whether it is used on other webpages/publications to make it relevant enough for use here, so I have removed it. L.tak (talk) 19:27, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Euro Parliament's stance on ratification

The article currently says the following: "However, the European Parliament, protesting against its exclusion from the negotiations and their secrecy, has moved to have the ratification take place in June or July 2012 as planned, in spite of the European Commission's objections."

This is missing a citation. And in fact I think this is not accurate. The European Parliament may proceed to VOTE on ratification, which may not actually ratify the agreement. Also this press release contradicts the above text:

I propose that the above sentence is replaced by the following:

"The European Parliament has stated it will wait for the Court's ruling before drawing any conclusions. However, in the meantime it will continue its own scrutiny of the agreement."

And adding a citation to the above URL.

(WikiJoop (talk) 21:40, 3 April 2012 (UTC))

Done Thanks, Celestra (talk) 03:32, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but that information is out of date, which is why I added that bit about the EP's refusal to wait for the ECJ's judgement. I thought it was common knowledge, but I have added a link this time: And another one: And I don't know what you mean by saying that voting on ratification is not the same as ratification; you mean the physical signature is not added to the document until later? If you think that is a significant difference, do edit "my" sentence to better reflect this distinction. Cerberus™ (talk) 04:09, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

the Industry, Research and Energy committee (ITRE), has also published their draft opinion on ACTA: Belorn (talk) 09:45, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Opening Paragraph Revisions

Revise opening paragraphs

Crystal Clear action edit add.png Added the third paragraph should be changed to reflect the broad private sector support given for ACTA. As it is presently written it looks like the act has only two supporters, and, it also needs some grammatical help.

Current text: Supporters have described the agreement as a response to "the increase in global trade of counterfeit goods and pirated copyright protected works". Large intellectual property-based organizations such as the MPAA and Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America were active in the treaty's development.

Proposed edit: Supporters have described the agreement as a response to "the increase in global trade of counterfeit goods and pirated copyright protected works". ACTA enjoys broad support from thousands of businesses and employers in Europe[5] and the United States [6]. Across many countries industry groups who are advocates of the rights of creative and innovative industries are supportive of ACTA and have been active in the treaty's development. Sonofchihuahua (talk) is not reliable enough as a source to backup a so large claim about the industry, and all its employers. The proposed edit also include some weasel words/promotional wording. To make an example: "thousands of businesses and employers in Europe" lacks context over the total number of businesses and employers in Europe. To be a correct statement, it should say a few thousands from all the millions of businesses and employers in Europe support ACTA. But that in itself is also weaseling as it does not state how many are for it, against it, or neutral. Belorn (talk) 13:14, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
Belorn, thanks for the response, can i ask, does the paragraph below also use such qualifications for the critics of ACTA? How many NGOs do EFF and ECA count themselves among? Nonetheless, I would be ok deleting the "thousands of" and instead saying "broad support from businesses and employers in Europe and the United States." As to your point in re ip-watch, double check the citation, the pdf is not from ip-watch just hosted there. The letter is from dozens of business organizations who have been authorized by hundreds of companies to support the letter. It deserves to be recognized as much as does an opinion from EFF. Sonofchihuahua (talk)
I support your goal; to bring improved balance in the article, but its a bit tougher than it looks to actually do it. Broad support is ambiguous. Based on comments made by (long list warning: Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), Free Software Foundation (FSF), Consumers International, EDRi, ASIC, Free Knowledge Institute, European Parliament, the Consumers Union, Electronic Frontier Foundation, Essential Action, IP Justice, Knowledge Ecology International, Public Knowledge, Global Trade Watch, US Public Interest Research Group, IP Left (Korea), Canadian Library Association, Consumers Union of Japan, National Consumer Council (UK), Doctors Without Borders, Australian Digital Alliance, Australian Library and Information Association, Choice, and Internet Industry Association), I could make this statement:
There is broad support from businesses and employers in Europe and the United States for ACTA, and at the same time there is broad rejection from businesses and employers in Europe, the United States, Asia and Australia of ACTA. This would of course just confuse readers, as it sounds as a contradiction to claim a broad support and broad rejection about the same treaty, and it would also bring the false suggestion that businesses and employers Asia and Australia are all against the treaty.
So the second paragraph: Calling the groups "advocates of the rights of creative and innovative industries", is confusing at best (US language), and completely nonsense in Europe. Business organizations do not have rights in Europe, human beings have rights. We could call them "advocates of the owners of business organizations with rights in intellectual property", or "advocates of intellectual property rights enforcement", but again I suspect both would only add confusion and lump together people in an unfair way.
Last, the letter. In Wikipedia terms, just hosted by ip-watch is worse. If there is no secondary sources about the letter, then we are strongly limited in what we should say about it. We can not interpret or analyze it. Any vagueness is utterly unacceptable. Attribution is extremely important when dealing with primary sources. I would suggest something like this: A number of trade organizations called for support of acta in a public letter to the European Parliament, and described ACTA as "promoting innovation and growth-enhancing measures". The phrase "A number of" is a bit vague, but might be the next best option over a list of the business organizations who signed the letter. That said, there is an issue of notability of the letter (WP:UNDUE), as compared to EFF, the letter is not very known. Belorn (talk) 07:29, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
This also presumes the supporters are right & it's all about pirated material & not about the dilution & deletion of existing rights in the name of protecting profits of major corporations. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 00:25, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Hi Uhura, since this paragraph is about what the supporters believe, why would we put somethng they dont believe in that place? The goal is to present a balanced approach it this overview. Sonofchihuahua (talk)

Not done: You should be able to do this yourself. Regards, Celestra (talk) 20:25, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

MPAA reference 1.2.3 should be completely deleted

− "An MPAA representative, in a 2010 private ACTA meeting in Mexico, told negotiators that “Bring in a censoring firewall to block piracy and you can use it to shut off sites that embarrass your government, like Wikileaks.”[43]"

− − see footnote 43 link, the author now retracts her article (see quote below) on this comment for MPAA;

− − ω Awaiting recommend deleting the entire section as it is now entirely unreferenced.

− − @emmboglen

− Hi all - It looks as though the quote I've used was actually paraphrased and not directly attributable. I can only apologise for not noticing this originally, and am incredibly sorry (and embarrassed) about this oversight. For more on the MPAA representative's contributions to the Mexico meeting see here: http://... I've submitted an edit to this story to remove the quote and clarify the concerns about the MPAA representative, and I apologise again for the error.

− − − Sonofchihuahua (talk) 03:21, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

− − Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 20:06, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

I showed a reference from the original author of the information cited who was since retracted her statement. Therefore, the citation is in error, the MPAA official said no such thing according to anyone. Please check the original link used to reference this point and you will see it is no longer valid. Here is the link [7].Sonofchihuahua (talk)

− − Please do not forget to sign! Signing makes reading talk pages less confusing to read. Anyway, There is a few sites that has that citation, (like this one), but we need to be watchful for circular sourcing. Belorn (talk) 08:34, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi Belorn, sorry for mising my signature! Thanks. To you point, the gizmodo article you've referenced also cites the now retracted source article. I would suggest that unless someone finds an independant credible source we should shelve this. At best it certainly doesn't add anything to the overall professionalism of the article, and it is pretty libelous and unverifiable. Sonofchihuahua (talk)

− −

You are correct. Did not see gizmodo also linked to the same above article. Thanks. Belorn (talk) 20:54, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

− − Not done: The requester should be autoconfirmed by now, so he can edit this article directly. Celestra (talk) 03:20, 7 April 2012 (UTC)  Done

  • Why was this done? That section seemed to provide important information in two respects: First, it exposed behaviors of an MPAA representative that would appear to be contrary to the interests of democracy. Second, it is important for the public to know that the MPAA was intimately involved in negotiations that were "properly classified in the interest of national security", because 'disclosure would cause "damage to the national security"', according to both the Bush and Obama administrations (both quotes from the article with suitable citations).
  • Please explain why the section was deleted and why it should not be restored. Thanks. DavidMCEddy (talk) 04:47, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
The discussion above the done-template was removed by a user. I have placed it back, but was not involved in the discussion. Feel free to comment if you have furhter concerns (or compliments ;-)) after reading it! L.tak (talk) 09:41, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Signatures and ratifications section has an error I think

It currently says, "The treaty is according to Article 39 open for signature until 31 March 2012" however looking at the ACTA text it says in that Article 39, "from 1 May 2011 until 1 May 2013". AwbMaven (talk) 19:03, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Artículo bueno.svg Implemented; indeed I have no idea where I've got the 31 March thing from, typo or from an old version. Thanks!

Was an old version. Indeed the change to 1 May came very late. Erik Josefsson (talk) 18:43, 9 April 2012 (UTC)


Please someone mention somewhere if it has actually been ratified in any country - has it??? And if not, please someone say so. Thanks! BigSteve (talk) 17:53, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

it hasn't been ratified by a single country. But frankly, even if there were no controversy, the first ratification would not be expected within a year after signature; as domestic processes (translation, advice, passing the law) take time... L.tak (talk) 19:10, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 Done added to the lede, and seems everyone likes it. Penyulap talk 13:48, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

I think there's another error. It said that the agreement would come into force after ratification by 6 states but there are 31 signatories. To get 6 from 31. Doesn't seem fair! Or is the European Union counted as one? I'm not sure but 6 from 9 is more likely to be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Teiko22 (talkcontribs) 12:24, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Teiko22 The number to ratify doesnt mean it will be in force for all 31, just for those who have ratified. So, in this case, once 6 countries have ratified and deposited their instruments of ratification, those 6 will be bound to each other. The others will only be bound when they ratify. Take the Convention on Biological Diversity as an example, the United States signed it (under Clinton), but has yet to ratify it. When the United States participates in meetings of the CBD it does so as a non-party. The CBD binds all Parties who ratify, but not those who merely sign. So, don't worry about thinking it is "unfair" Sonofchihuahua (talk) 02:18, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

recommend deleting Teiko22's question and my answer if he is satisfied. <-(hey who said this?)

I've added the answer to the lede to improve it. If one person is asking on the talkpage, there are others not understanding, so making the article clearer is good practice. Penyulap 16:34, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Historically similar reception?

I am not sure how to word a new section. I think that in Canada similar agreements like this fail when tested in court. The federal government may have signed it, but it violates our rights; thus it is void.--Canoe1967 (talk) 12:25, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

probably good to google some words like 'legal experts, unconstitutional, challenge', and so on, see if some self important politician or lawyer is in a fluster and quote him or her. Penyulap 16:37, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Treaty, Agreement or Convention?

The article is inconsistent with regards to what ACTA is. I think this needs to be fixed as treaties, international agreements and conventions are very different legal constructs. They are also negotiated in different ways, with different representation, (democratic) participation etc. No party has negotated ACTA as a Treaty as far as I know, even if it in the political debate has been regarded as an "enforcement treaty". Further, the term first used, "multinational treaty", could be seen as a hiding a political sensitivity since ACTA is a-politically categogorised in the spectrum of bi-lateral, pluri-lateral and multi-lateral agreements. The plurilateral approach has been heavily chritizised by the Parliament (see March 2010 Resolution) and Commissioner DeGucht has defended the agreement with the words "a coalition of the willing". Erik Josefsson (talk) 18:57, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

quite right, can you assist by writing a paragraph in the correct section outlining that, and a sentence for the lead that starts with 'Legally ACTA is.....' or something like that. The lede must use approachable language which everyone understands, and such differences are a bit technical. But it can have an approachable definition and a legal definition, so please help write something for it, as you seem to know what it is about, and don't forget a reference or two! Penyulap

EU Rapporteur recommends that EP vote against ACTA

A draft opinion by ACTA's European Rapporteur, British MEP David Martin, has recommended that ACTA should be rejected by the European Parliament. Meanwhile, the European Commission's case on ACTA is still being reviewed by the European Court of Justice and has urged the EP to wait until the court's decision. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:42, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

 Done should try to use dates where you can rather than meanwhile and new. but it's not vandalism, so i put it in there for you. I haven't looked at this page for a long time. Penyulap 16:15, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't see any reference to his recommendation in the page just now. Reported by the BBC and others, his recommendation says "The intended benefits of this international agreement are far outweighed by the potential threats to civil liberties. Given the vagueness of certain aspects of the text and the uncertainty over its interpretation, the European Parliament cannot guarantee adequate protection for citizens' rights in the future under ACTA.
Your rapporteur therefore recommends that the European Parliament declines to give consent to ACTA." (talk) 00:02, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
I've included it as best I can, feel free to login and make changes, or write out new paragraphs here so it is easier for me to cut'n'paste them, it's a lot of work otherwise. Penyulap 12:43, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

European Commission admits ACTA is likely to fail.

"The European Commission has admitted for the first time that the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement, or ACTA, will probably be defeated in Europe. The failure of ACTA to be voted through in the EU is indeed likely, as the leader of the trade committee that has been scrutinising it has advised the European Parliament to reject it in June. Most political groupings in the Parliament, and even the Parliament's president, have also come out against the treaty."

Digital Agenda commissioner Neelie Kroes was quoted as saying: "We have recently seen how many thousands of people are willing to protest against rules which they see as constraining the openness and innovation of the internet. This is a strong new political voice, and as a force for openness, I welcome it, even if I do not always agree with everything it says on every subject." — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:03, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Indeed; I added it last week (with the quote box). Anything you wish to add to the text there? L.tak (talk) 21:06, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

ACTA now rejected by four EP committees

ACTA has been rejected by four EP committees. ref:

Not sure if this info should be in the article or not (talk) 12:50, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

IMO it should. I plan to add a table with the voting results of all 4 of them in the next two days or so... L.tak (talk) 15:02, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 Done L.tak (talk) 17:35, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Official White House ACTA Position (June, 2012)

Following Edit Was Recently Added To The ACTA Main Article:

Copied From Anti-Counterfeiting_Trade_Agreement#Petitions

In the United States, several ACTA-related White House petitions have been created. One petition, "End ACTA and Protect our right to privacy on the Internet," was created 21 January 2012 and has reached the threshold of 25,000 signatures within a month's time. With 47,517 signatures currently, this petition may be "closed" as of 9 June.[1] In June, 2012, Ambassador Miriam Sapiro (Deputy US Trade Representative), on behalf of the White House Staff, presented the current official White House position[2] in response to the petition.


Perhaps This New "Official White House ACTA Position" Information Should Be Placed In A Better Position Within The Main ACTA Article? - In Any Case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 14:48, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

 Done - The Following Edit Was Added To The Main ACTA article

Copied From Anti-Counterfeiting_Trade_Agreement#United_States

In June 2012, Ambassador Miriam Sapiro (Deputy US Trade Representative), presented the official White House position on ACTA as follows:
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.[1]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)


The official languages of the treaty are English, Spanish and French. I have therefore added the French and Spanish title to the infobox. Now the question is whether we should add the abbreviation (e.g. ACAC for french as well). Google (even if I set it to french) hardly picks it up and this is English wikipedia; so let's leave the abbreviations out here? (see this for example: En France, nous devrions plutôt l'appeler l'accord commercial anti-contrefaçon (ACAC). Mais l'acronyme Acta (Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement) reste le plus connu.) Thoughs? L.tak (talk) 14:59, 4 July 2012 (UTC)


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 (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

Japan has ratified ACTA. 1 Please add Japan to the ratifiers list.-- (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)