Talk:Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement

Trans-Pacific Agreement ?!

Seems like something similar is going on between the US. and Pacific countries ... http://tppwatch.org/what-is-tppa/ 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)" 24.125.232.144 (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 86.28.234.39 (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 31.205.28.203 (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 91.182.71.133 (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 : http://www.mkidn.gov.pl/media/docs/20120118-wniosek_ACTA.pdf . 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 (talk • contribs) 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)

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)

cleanup

orphan from lead, some discussion outline

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)

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 187.126.135.232 (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)

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 http://www.rmf24.pl/raport-koniec-wolnego-internetu/acta-fakty/news-tysiace-osob-na-protestach-przeciwko-acta-zamieszki-w,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 http://www.rmf24.pl/fakty/polska/news-stworzylismy-z-wami-mape-protestow,nId,430940 Poznań: 2000 MAP OF PROTESTS: http://www.rmf24.pl/fakty/polska/news-stworzylismy-z-wami-mape-protestow,nId,430940 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.202.52.134 (talk) 23:29, 28 January 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 152.130.8.9 (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)

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? 194.166.100.6 (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: http://www.mofa.go.jp/policy/economy/i_property/acta1201.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.55.55.257 (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)

Depositary

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? --92.202.63.148 (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)

Map & EU.

The map may be clearer with a color for the EU. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.81.62.174 (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".

83.170.106.45 (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 91.201.80.240 (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 193.219.3.229 (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 - http://www.jestemprzeciwacta.pl/ (in polish) and almost 1 million signatures against ACTA worldwide - http://www.avaaz.org/en/eu_save_the_internet_spread/
200 thousands "referendum" signatures were documented by PAP (Polish Press Agancy) and cited/published by major polish news portals WP and ONET (in polish):
http://wiadomosci.wp.pl/title,Zebralismy-200-tys-podpisow-za-referendum-ws-ACTA,wid,14205127,wiadomosc.html
http://biznes.onet.pl/bedzie-referendum-ws-acta-juz-200-tys-podpisow,18515,5010615,1,news-detal

I didn't find any press info on avaaz.org 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 - http://fakty.interia.pl/raport/internauci-przeciwko-acta/news/milion-glosow-w-sprawie-acta,1752654,7906 78.8.129.19 (talk) 14:29, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

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

Criticism

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". 188.27.64.186 (talk) 07:05, 31 January 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.

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 192.100.180.19 (talk) 16:14, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Clarity

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 192.100.180.19 (talk) 16:46, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Verifiability

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 85.138.87.177 (talk) 17:41, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

 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)

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)

Wikipedia-Protest like SOPA/PIPA?

Will Wikipedia do something about ACTA, like they did at SOPA/PIPA? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doncan94 (talk • contribs) 21:00, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Czech government suspended process of ratification

http://www.ceskenoviny.cz/news/zpravy/czech-government-suspends-process-of-ratification-of-acta-pm/751437 Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 22:41, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Addition to Petitions sequence

As for Feb. 9th anti-ACTA petition directed at Estonian people http://petitsioon.ee/ei-acta-le has reached over 6000 signatures. Yersinia12 (talk) 17:03, 9 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.

217.209.156.94 (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)

Susta resolution

Already the Susta resolution from 2008 called for transparency of the documents. You find it linked on http://acta.ffii.org --79.204.171.144 (talk) 22:36, 10 February 2012 (UTC)