Talk:Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement

ACTA was denied by EU

It was dneid and that denail should appear in the first paragraphs, rather than being buried in the text several paragraphs further down. Hope someone could do that. http://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/pressroom/content/20120703IPR48247/html/European-Parliament-rejects-ACTA http://ec.europa.eu/trade/creating-opportunities/trade-topics/intellectual-property/index_en.htm http://www.engadget.com/2012/07/04/acta-rejected-by-european-union-vote/

Can we fix it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.224.2.148 (talk) 23:41, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

ACTA referred to the European Court of Justice

Since 22 February, ACTA has been referred to the European Court of Justice. No ruling has been given as of yet. Avaaz claims that the European Commission is trying to manipulate the process

ACTA now rejected by four EP committees

ACTA has been rejected by four EP committees. ref: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/pressroom/content/20120529IPR45936/html/ACTA-now-rejected-by-four-EP-committees

Not sure if this info should be in the article or not 84.109.70.155 (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. In June, 2012, Ambassador Miriam Sapiro (Deputy US Trade Representative), on behalf of the White House Staff, presented the current official White House position in response to the petition.

References

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.ref

References

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)

French/Spanish?

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)

WELL, AT LEAST IN MEXICO ONE FACTION OF THE GOVERNMENT IS ALREADY MANIPULATING THE PROCESS! LATEST NEWS: YESTERDAY THE MEXICAN GOVERNMENT SIGNED THE TREATISE... AGAINST THE UNANIMOUS SENATE RECOMMENDATION OF NOT SIGNING

In a dirty, dissapointing maneuver, yesterday the Mexican government, in (another) move to try to "stand out" above its ineptitude and mediocrity, signed the treatise agains the absolute, unanimous recommendation of its own senate. Senator Eloy Cantú from the PRI party said that the executive power did NOT inform in a timely manner of its move. Evidently, there are occult players that are interested in Mexico's vote in order to push this agreement. This is not the first time that the presidential power puts obscure interests above people's rights, in a pathetic attempt to appear as a progressist country, when in reality, the public access to Internet is very limited and slow in Mexico. The only hope the people has against this shameful move of its government, lies in its senate, but the hope is thin because they have voted against people's interests many times. The reason stated by the senate in 2010 is that any measure that could limit the information rights of the already limited mexican's internet access goes against the development of the country and the education of its citizens, given the tremendous asymmetry of the country rudimentary telecommunications infrastructure when compared to the majority of the countries of the whole world. Information was broadcast today july 12, 2012 by the very independent journalist Carmen Aristegui in her daily radio news program. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.100.180.20 (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.--72.148.3.214 (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)