Talk:Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement

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)

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)

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)

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.

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: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ryg6SFLeL-s for no connection with political parties(last line of the second paragraph): http://wiadomosci.wp.pl/opage,8,title,Zobacz-co-wydarzylo-sie-przed-domem-Donalda-Tuska,wid,14215633,wiadomosc.html?ticaid=1ded4&_ticrsn=5 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kubatoja2 (talk • contribs) 18:06, 15 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 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)

Bulgaria will hold ACTA ratification until other EU member states decisions, said Traicho Traykov, Minister of Economy, Energy and Tourism. See more at http://www.novinite.com/view_news.php?id=136640 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 http://www.dnevnik.bg/bulgaria/2012/02/15/1766892_pravitelstvoto_oficialno_spria_procedurata_po_priemane/. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.70.114.10 (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: http://oe1.orf.at/artikel/298291 --92.224.199.51 (talk) 11:28, 19 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. -- 82.113.103.164 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 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)

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)

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)

Oh I can only hope so, and let's make it a month or two at least so we can all have a nice long rest eh ? Support anyone ? :) Penyulap _talk 06:45, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I heard informally from an intern at the Wikimedia Foundation that they would NOT again take down the site like that. The boy who cried wolf. I did not get this from Jimmy Wales but from someone close enough that this probably reflects the mood of the Wikimedia Board. DavidMCEddy (talk) 20:17, 27 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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"--79.204.171.144 (talk) 22:39, 10 February 2012 (UTC) http://press.ffii.org/Press%20releases/FFII%20requests%20proof%20ACTA%27s%20criminal%20measures%20are%20essential

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)

Split

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. henrik•talk 16:04, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
• Nope the article needs better writing, not fragmentation. 203.45.74.13 (talk) 12:52, 17 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)

Petitions

The website jestemprzeciwacta.pl 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 jestemprzeciwacta.pl 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: http://referendumacta.pl/
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 (talk • contribs) 18:14, 15 February 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 http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Anti-Counterfeiting_Trade_Agreement#ARTICLE_39:_SIGNATURE it says in that Article 39, "from 1 May 2011 until 1 May 2013". AwbMaven (talk) 19:03, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

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

Ratification

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)

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 http://wiki.stoppacta-protest.info/DE:Teilnehmerzahlen 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 31.205.10.212 (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 , thereby effectively putting the ratification process on hold for all EU countries . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.78.212.132 (talk) 18:21, 22 February 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 Novinite.com), 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. 85.187.35.160 (talk) 02:18, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

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)

section#1

it seems that this act is not well received amongst people. i wish it be withdrawn of europe because changes my homepage privacy. should you receive just results in europe from google.ro when you enter http://www.google.com, ?

maybe such company should revert prior to the eff.a.c.t.a. agreement, section "why pick a global act" ?--188.25.53.154 (talk) 04:00, 1 March 2012 (UTC)