Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement#EU Rapporteur.27s resignation

Negotiations for the ACTA treaty are not part of any international body.{{cite web |url=http://www.med.govt.nz/templates/ContentTopicSummary____34357.aspx |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110716072750/http://www.med.govt.nz/templates/ContentTopicSummary____34357.aspx |archive-date=16 July 2011 |title=On Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement |author=Ministry of Economic Development of New Zealand |author-link=Ministry of Economic Development (New Zealand) |year=2008 }} ACTA was first developed by Japan and the United States in 2006. Canada, the European Union (represented in the negotiations by the European Commission, the EU Presidency and EU Member States) and Switzerland joined the preliminary talks throughout 2006 and 2007. Official negotiations began in June 2008, with Australia, Mexico, Morocco, New Zealand, the Republic of Korea and Singapore joining the talks. The Senate of Mexico voted unanimously to withdraw Mexico from ACTA negotiations on 30 September 2010.{{cite news |first=Mike |last=Masnick |title=Mexican Senate Unanimously Votes To Remove Mexico From ACTA Negotiations |date=6 October 2010 |url=http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101005/17320811304/mexican-senate-unanimously-votes-to-remove-mexico-from-acta-negotations.shtml |work=Techdirt |access-date=5 February 2012 |archive-date=5 February 2012 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120205041139/http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101005/17320811304/mexican-senate-unanimously-votes-to-remove-mexico-from-acta-negotations.shtml |url-status=live }}

File:Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (3464364037).jpg in Brussels]]

According to a 2008 European Union commentary there was at that stage no draft, but a leaked document constituted initial views as they had been circulated by some of the negotiating parties. Leaked details published in February 2009 showed the 6 chapter-division also present in the final text. Most discussion was focused on the "Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights" (IPR) chapter 2, which had the four sections also present (but slightly differently named) in the final version: Civil Enforcement, Border Measures, Criminal Enforcement and Intellectual Property Rights Enforcement in the Digital Environment.{{cite web |title=Fact Sheet: Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement |publisher=European Commission |url=http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2008/october/tradoc_140836.11.08.pdf |orig-year=23 October 2007 |date=November 2008 |access-date=27 November 2009 |archive-date=31 January 2012 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120131151217/http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2008/october/tradoc_140836.11.08.pdf |url-status=live }} Apart from the participating governments, an advisory committee of large US-based multinational corporations was consulted on the content of the draft treaty,{{cite web |author=Knowledge Ecology International |url=http://www.keionline.org/blogs/2009/03/13/who-are-cleared-advisors |title=Who are the cleared advisors that have access to secret ACTA documents? |publisher=Knowledge Ecology International |date=13 October 2009 |access-date=29 January 2012 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120120190153/http://www.keionline.org/blogs/2009/03/13/who-are-cleared-advisors |archive-date=20 January 2012 |url-status=dead }} including the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America{{cite web |url=http://www.keionline.org/content/view/193/1 |title=PhRMA comments to USTR on ACTA |author=PhRMA |date=21 March 2008 |access-date=16 November 2009 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100223230754/http://keionline.org/content/view/193/1 |archive-date=23 February 2010 |url-status=dead }} and the International Intellectual Property Alliance{{cite web |url=http://www.iipa.com/aboutiipa.html |title=About IIPA |publisher=International Intellectual Property Alliance |access-date=29 January 2012 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160110122414/http://www.iipa.com/aboutiipa.html |archive-date=10 January 2016 |url-status=usurped }} (which includes the Business Software Alliance, Motion Picture Association of America, and Recording Industry Association of America).{{cite web |title=RIAA's ACTA wishlist includes gutted DMCA, mandatory filters |work=Ars Technica |url=https://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080630-inside-the-riaas-acta-wishlist.html |author=Nate Anderson |date=30 June 2008 |access-date=2 July 2008 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080701132525/http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080630-inside-the-riaas-acta-wishlist.html |archive-date=1 July 2008 |url-status=live }} A 2009 Freedom of Information request showed that the following companies also received copies of the draft under a nondisclosure agreement: Google, eBay, Intel, Dell, News Corporation, Sony Pictures, Time Warner, and Verizon.{{cite web |author=Ian Grant |title=ACTA talks focus on three strikes, no appeal deal for software pirates |work=Computer Weekly |date=4 November 2009 |url=http://www.computerweekly.com/Articles/2009/11/04/238414/Acta-talks-focus-on-three-strikes-no-appeal-deal-for-software.htm |access-date=12 June 2010 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100627175417/http://www.computerweekly.com/Articles/2009/11/04/238414/Acta-talks-focus-on-three-strikes-no-appeal-deal-for-software.htm |archive-date=27 June 2010 |url-status=live }}

On 23 March 2010, the entire "18 January 2010 consolidated text" of sections 2.1 and 2.4 (Civil Enforcement, and Special Measures Related To Technological Enforcement Means and the Internet) along with the demands of each negotiator was leaked to the public.{{cite web |url=http://en.swpat.org/wiki/ACTA-6437-10.pdf_as_text |title=ACTA-6437-10.pdf (as text) |publisher=swpat.org |access-date=4 May 2012 |archive-date=28 April 2012 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120428193938/http://en.swpat.org/wiki/ACTA-6437-10.pdf_as_text |url-status=live }}{{cite web |url=http://www.laquadrature.net/en/0118-version-of-acta-consolidated-text-leaks |title=New ACTA leak: 01/18 version of consolidated text |publisher=La Quadrature du Net |access-date=4 May 2012 |date=23 March 2010 |orig-year=text of 18 January 2010 |archive-date=11 May 2012 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120511024102/http://www.laquadrature.net/en/0118-version-of-acta-consolidated-text-leaks |url-status=live }}

The negotiating parties published the then-current draft on 20 April 2010.{{cite web |title=Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement Consolidated Text PUBLIC Predecisional/Deliberative Draft: April 2010 |url=http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2010/april/tradoc_146029.pdf |publisher=European Commission |date=20 April 2010 |access-date=4 May 2012 |archive-date=3 June 2012 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120603004400/http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2010/april/tradoc_146029.pdf |url-status=live }} In June 2010, a conference with "over 90 academics, practitioners and public interest organizations from six continents"{{cite web |url=http://www.wcl.american.edu/pijip/go/acta-communique |title=Text of Urgent ACTA Communique – English, Portuguese, French, Korean, Spanish |publisher=Washington College of Law |date=23 June 2010 |access-date=29 January 2012 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120120155721/http://www.wcl.american.edu/pijip/go/acta-communique |archive-date=20 January 2012 |url-status=dead }} concluded "that the terms of the publicly released draft of ACTA threaten numerous public interests, including every concern specifically disclaimed by negotiators." A group of over 75 law professors signed a letter to President Obama demanding that ACTA be halted and changed.{{cite web |title=Over 75 law profs call for halt of ACTA |publisher=Program on Information Justice and Intellectual Property |url=http://www.wcl.american.edu/pijip/go/blog-post/academic-sign-on-letter-to-obama-on-acta |date=28 October 2010 |access-date=16 November 2010 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20101128103101/http://www.wcl.american.edu/pijip/go/blog-post/academic-sign-on-letter-to-obama-on-acta |archive-date=28 November 2010 |url-status=dead }} A full consolidated text of the proposed ACTA, dated 1 July 2010,{{cite web |url=http://www.publicknowledge.org/files/docs/ACTA_consolidatedtext.pdf |title=Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement Informal Predecisional/Deliberative Draft: 1 July 2010 |date=1 July 2010 |access-date=28 September 2010 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20101010213449/http://www.publicknowledge.org/files/docs/ACTA_consolidatedtext.pdf |archive-date=10 October 2010 |url-status=dead }} apparently coming from the civil liberties committee (LIBE) of the European Parliament{{citation needed|date=April 2012}} was leaked providing the full text from the Luzern round of negotiations, including the name of the negotiating parties along with their positions.

The revised and final text, dated 15 November 2010, was leaked on 16 November 2010 by several websites.{{cite web|url=http://NerdNG.arpa.com/2010/11/acta-final-agreement-leaked.html |title=ACTA Final Agreement Leaked |date=16 November 2010 |access-date=16 November 2010 |work=Nerd::NG |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20101121062406/http://nerdng.arpa.com/2010/11/acta-final-agreement-leaked.html |archive-date=21 November 2010 }}

On 16 April 2010, the negotiating countries issued a joint statement that they had reached unanimous agreement to make the consolidated text, as established at that round of negotiation, available to the public by 21 April. It was also decided to not release individual negotiating positions of countries.{{cite web |url=http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/10/437&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en/ |title=Joint Statement on Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) |publisher=European Commission |access-date=17 April 2010 |date=16 April 2010 |archive-date=3 April 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210403090107/https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/IP_10_437 |url-status=live }} The final draft text was published on 20 April 2010. The final text was released on 15 November 2010,{{cite web |url=http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/10/1504&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en |title=Joint statement on the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) from all the negotiating partners of the agreement |publisher=European Commission |date=15 November 2010 |access-date=3 April 2021 |archive-date=18 July 2012 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120718050708/http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP%2F10%2F1504&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en |url-status=live }} and published on 15 April 2011 in English, French and Spanish.{{cite web |url=http://www.international.gc.ca/trade-agreements-accords-commerciaux/fo/intellect_property.aspx?view=d |title=Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) |date=31 January 2012 |access-date=6 July 2012 |publisher=Canadian Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade |archive-date=1 May 2012 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120501080331/http://www.international.gc.ca/trade-agreements-accords-commerciaux/fo/intellect_property.aspx?view=d |url-status=live }}

A draft Report from 26 August 2008 by the European Commission tried to establish a mandate from the European Parliament for the negotiation of ACTA.{{cite web |author=Gianluca Susta |url=http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE405.983 |title=Draft Report on the impact of counterfeiting on international trade |publisher=European Parliament's Committee on International Trade |date=26 August 2008 |access-date=27 August 2008 |archive-date=3 January 2009 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090103214720/http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE405.983 |url-status=live }} On 25 September 2008 the Council of the European Union adopted a resolution in support of ACTA.{{cite web |url=http://www.consilium.europa.eu/ueDocs/cms_Data/docs/pressData/en/intm/103037.pdf |title=Council Resolution on a comprehensive European anti-counterfeiting plan |publisher=Council of the European Union |date=25 September 2008 |author=Presidency of the Council |access-date=30 September 2008 |archive-date=22 November 2008 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20081122234647/http://www.consilium.europa.eu/ueDocs/cms_Data/docs/pressData/en/intm/103037.pdf |url-status=live }} In November 2008 the European Commission described ACTA as an attempt to enforce intellectual property rights and states that countries involved in the negotiations see intellectual property rights as "a key instrument for their development and innovation policies". It argues:

{{blockquote|The proliferation of intellectual property rights (IPR) infringements poses an ever-increasing threat to the sustainable development of the world economy. It is a problem with serious economic and social consequences. Today, we face a number of new challenges: the increase of dangerous counterfeit goods (pharmaceuticals, food and drink, cosmetics or toys, car parts); the speed and ease of digital reproduction; the growing importance of the Internet as a means of distribution; and the sophistication and resources of international counterfeiters. All these factors have made the problem more pervasive and harder to tackle.}}

In March 2010, a leaked draft negotiation text showed that the European Commission had proposed language in ACTA to require criminal penalties for "inciting, aiding and abetting" certain offenses, including "at least in cases of willful trademark counterfeiting and copyright or related rights piracy on a commercial scale."{{cite web |title=EU proposes ACTA require criminal sanctions for inciting, aiding and abetting infringements |publisher=Knowledge Ecology International |url=http://keionline.org/node/806 |date=17 March 2010 |access-date=19 March 2010 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100322191648/http://keionline.org/node/806 |archive-date=22 March 2010 |url-status=dead }} In a report published on 11 March 2009, the European Parliament called on the European Commission to "immediately make all documents related to the ongoing international negotiations on the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) publicly available".{{cite web |title=European Parliament resolution of 10 March 2010 on the transparency and state of play of the ACTA negotiations |publisher=European Parliament |date=10 March 2010 |url=http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=TA&reference=P7-TA-2010-0058&language=EN&ring=P7-RC-2010-0154 |access-date=13 June 2010 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100722060547/http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=TA&reference=P7-TA-2010-0058&language=EN&ring=P7-RC-2010-0154 |archive-date=22 July 2010 |url-status=live }}

The European Parliament resolution of 10 March 2010 on the transparency and state of play of the ACTA negotiations stated that "according to documents leaked, the ACTA negotiations touch on, among other things, pending EU legislation regarding the enforcement of IPRs (COD/2005/0127 – Criminal measures aimed at assuring the enforcement of intellectual property rights (IPRED-II)) and the so-called "Telecoms Package" and on existing EU legislation regarding e-commerce and data protection." The resolution furthermore states, "whereas the ongoing EU efforts to harmonise IPR enforcement measures should not be circumvented by trade negotiations that are outside the scope of normal EU decision-making processes." Also, that the enforcement of intellectual property rights (IPRs), including patent, trademark, and copyright law, must be "accomplished in a manner that does not impede innovation or competition, undermine IPR limitations and personal data protection, restrict the free flow of information or unduly burden legitimate trade."

The resolution called for the European Commission and the European Council to "grant public and parliamentary access to ACTA negotiation texts and summaries, in accordance with" the Lisbon Treaty and "Regulation 1049/2001 of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents." In the resolution, the European Parliament "deplores the calculated choice of the parties not to negotiate through well-established international bodies, such as WIPO and WTO, which have established frameworks for public information and consultation". The European Parliament asserted that under the Treaty of Lisbon the European Commission needed to provide "immediate and full information" to the European Parliament on international treaties, such as ACTA. The resolution also "stresses that, unless Parliament is immediately and fully informed at all stages of the negotiations, it reserves its right to take suitable action, including bringing a case before the Court of Justice in order to safeguard its prerogatives".

As of 26 December 2014, the treaty was signed -but not all ratified- by 31 states as well as the European Union. Japan was on 4 October 2012 the first to ratify the treaty.{{cite web|url=http://www.mofa.go.jp/policy/economy/i_property/acta_conclusion_1210.html|title=Conclusion of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) by Japan|access-date=6 October 2012|date=5 October 2012|work=Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan|archive-date=23 January 2013|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130123172029/http://www.mofa.go.jp/policy/economy/i_property/acta_conclusion_1210.html|url-status=live}}

The treaty is according to Article 39 open for signature until 1 May 2013 for the participants involved in the negotiations as well as all members of the World Trade Organization (WTO) of which the participants agree. It enters into force after subsequent ratification by six states (Article 40). After 1 May 2013, WTO members that did not sign, may accede to the convention after approval by the ACTA committee (Article 43).

A signing ceremony was held on 1 October 2011 in Tokyo, with the United States, Australia, Canada, Japan, Morocco, New Zealand, Singapore, and South Korea signing the treaty. The European Union, Mexico, and Switzerland attended but did not sign, professing support and saying they will do so in the future{{cite web |url=http://www.ustr.gov/about-us/press-office/press-releases/2011/october/joint-press-statement-anti-counterfeiting-trade-ag |work=Office of the United States Trade Representative |year=2011 |title=Joint Press Statement of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement Negotiating Parties |access-date=5 October 2011 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20111004020937/http://www.ustr.gov/about-us/press-office/press-releases/2011/october/joint-press-statement-anti-counterfeiting-trade-ag |archive-date=4 October 2011 |url-status=dead }}{{cite news |url=http://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-japan-trade-counterfeiting-idUKTRE79018620111001 |title=Anti-counterfeiting agreement signed in Tokyo |work=Reuters |date=1 October 2011 |access-date=3 February 2012 |archive-date=13 February 2012 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120213000158/http://uk.reuters.com/article/2011/10/01/uk-japan-trade-counterfeiting-idUKTRE79018620111001 |url-status=dead }} (the European Union and 22 of its member states did so in January 2012). In May 2012, the Swiss government announced that it would withhold its signature while deliberations in the EU are pending.{{cite news |title=Now it's Switzerland's turn to call ACTA into question |url=http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120509/05525418846/now-its-switzerlands-turn-to-call-acta-into-question.shtml |access-date=10 May 2012 |newspaper=Techdirt |date=10 May 2012 |archive-date=13 May 2012 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120513092013/http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120509/05525418846/now-its-switzerlands-turn-to-call-acta-into-question.shtml |url-status=live }} In early July 2012, Claude Heller, Mexican Ambassador to Japan, signed the treaty.{{cite web|date=12 July 2012|access-date=12 July 2012|url=http://www.mofa.go.jp/policy/economy/i_property/acta1207.html|work=Ministry of Foreign Affairs (Japan)|title=Signing by Mexico on the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA)|archive-date=23 January 2013|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130123172025/http://www.mofa.go.jp/policy/economy/i_property/acta1207.html|url-status=live}}{{cite web|url=http://eleconomista.com.mx/tecnociencia/2012/07/11/mexico-firma-acta-activistas-rechazan-su-aplicacion|title=México firma ACTA; activistas rechazan su aplicación|language=es|date=11 July 2012|access-date=11 July 2012|work=El Economista|archive-date=17 July 2012|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120717005059/http://eleconomista.com.mx/tecnociencia/2012/07/11/mexico-firma-acta-activistas-rechazan-su-aplicacion|url-status=live}} On 23 July, the Senate of Mexico rejected the decision the Cabinet of the country took.{{cite web|title=Senado rechaza la firma avalada por el Ejecutivo sobre ACTA|url=http://www.excelsior.com.mx/index.php?m=nota&seccion=seccion-nacional&cat=1&id_nota=849696#.UA8XNlOcQtM.twitter|first=Marina|last=Núñez|language=es|date=24 July 2012|access-date=24 July 2012|work=Excélsior|publisher=Grupo Imágen|archive-date=3 April 2021|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210403090048/https://www.excelsior.com.mx/node/849696#.UA8XNlOcQtM.twitter|url-status=live}}

The European Union and its then 28 Member States share competency on the subject of this convention. This means that entry into force on its territory requires ratification (or accession) by all states, as well as approval of the European Union. Approval of the European Union involves consent of the European Parliament as well as the Council.{{cite web |title=ACTA — Anti-counterfeiting Trade Agreement |url=http://ec.europa.eu/trade/creating-opportunities/trade-topics/intellectual-property/anti-counterfeiting/ |date=2 February 2012 |access-date=3 February 2012 |publisher=European Commission |archive-date=31 January 2012 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120131022924/http://ec.europa.eu/trade/creating-opportunities/trade-topics/intellectual-property/anti-counterfeiting/ |url-status=live }} On 26 January 2012, the European Union and 22 Member States signed the treaty in Tokyo. According to depositary Japan, the remaining members (Cyprus, Estonia, Germany, Netherlands and Slovakia) were expected to sign it on the completion of their respective domestic procedures.{{cite web |url=http://www.mofa.go.jp/policy/economy/i_property/acta1201.html |title=Signing Ceremony of the EU for the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) (Outline) |publisher=Ministry of Foreign Affairs (Japan) |date=26 January 2012 |access-date=3 February 2012 |archive-date=29 January 2012 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120129013442/http://www.mofa.go.jp/policy/economy/i_property/acta1201.html |url-status=live }} On 3 February 2012, Poland announced it halted the ratification process as it "had made insufficient consultations before signing the agreement in late January, and it was necessary to ensure it was entirely safe for Polish citizens."{{cite news |url=http://www.zdnet.co.uk/news/intellectual-property/2012/02/03/actas-eu-future-in-doubt-after-polish-pause-40094978/ |date=3 February 2012 |access-date=17 June 2013 |work=ZDNet UK |title=ACTA's EU future in doubt after Polish pause |archive-date=10 May 2012 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120510222918/http://www.zdnet.co.uk/news/intellectual-property/2012/02/03/actas-eu-future-in-doubt-after-polish-pause-40094978/ |url-status=live }}{{cite web |author=Raphael Satter and Vanessa Gera |title=US sites hacked as objections grow to piracy deal |url=http://www.nbcnews.com/id/46427642 |date=17 February 2012 |work=NBC News |access-date=19 February 2012 |archive-date=24 September 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200924002723/http://www.nbcnews.com/id/46427642 |url-status=dead }} Also, Bulgaria,{{cite web |url=http://www.novinite.com/view_news.php?id=136640 |title=Bulgaria Freezes ACTA, Waits to Hear EU Orders |access-date=14 February 2012 |date=14 February 2012 |work=Novinite.com (Sofia News Agency) |archive-date=18 February 2012 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120218043134/http://novinite.com/view_news.php?id=136640 |url-status=live }} the Czech Republic,{{cite web |author=Petr Krčmář |title=Česká vláda pozastaví ratifikaci ACT |trans-title=Czech government suspends ratification of ACTA |url=http://www.root.cz/zpravicky/ceska-vlada-pozastavi-ratifikaci-acta/ |date=6 February 2012 |work=Root.cz |access-date=9 February 2012 |archive-date=8 February 2012 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120208031522/http://www.root.cz/zpravicky/ceska-vlada-pozastavi-ratifikaci-acta/ |url-status=live }}{{cite news |url=https://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5gguBSrXtQKnr0famyhxMlNK2plDQ?docId=CNG.956cc047c755305c8ad4580183554bcc.71 |title=Czech Republic, Slovakia freeze anti-piracy pact |agency=Agence France-Presse |access-date=10 November 2016 |archive-date=21 April 2012 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120421075230/http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5gguBSrXtQKnr0famyhxMlNK2plDQ?docId=CNG.956cc047c755305c8ad4580183554bcc.71 |url-status=dead }} Latvia,{{cite web |title=Podpora pre ACTA slabne |trans-title=ACTA support is weakening |url=http://ekonomika.etrend.sk/svet/podpora-pre-acta-slabne.html |date=9 February 2012 |work=eTREND.sk |access-date=9 February 2012 |archive-date=12 February 2012 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120212074627/http://ekonomika.etrend.sk/svet/podpora-pre-acta-slabne.html |url-status=live }} Lithuania{{cite web |author=Danuta Pavilenene |url=http://www.baltic-course.com/eng/Technology/?doc=53202 |title=Lithuania halts ratification of ACTA |work=The Baltic Course |date=16 February 2012 |access-date=3 May 2012 |archive-date=13 May 2012 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120513143625/http://www.baltic-course.com/eng/Technology/?doc=53202 |url-status=live }} and non-signatories Germany,{{cite news |url=http://www.zeit.de/digital/internet/2012-02/acta-deutschland-ablehnung |title=Deutschland wird Acta-Abkommen vorerst nicht unterzeichnen |trans-title=Germany will not sign ACTA |work=Die Zeit |date=10 February 2012 |access-date=10 February 2012 |archive-date=13 February 2012 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120213015509/http://www.zeit.de/digital/internet/2012-02/acta-deutschland-ablehnung |url-status=live }} Slovakia{{cite web |url=http://www.dsl.sk/article.php?article=12084&title= |title=Ministerstvo hospodárstva zastavilo prijímanie dohody ACTA |trans-title=The Ministry of the Economy stops the adoption of ACTA |date=6 February 2012 |work=DSL.sk |access-date=9 February 2012 |archive-date=8 February 2012 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120208223437/http://www.dsl.sk/article.php?article=12084&title= |url-status=live }} and Slovenia{{cite web |title=Slovenia considers freeze on ACTA ratification |date=16 February 2012 |access-date=16 February 2012 |agency=Focus News Agency |url=http://www.focus-fen.net/index.php?id=n271109 |archive-date=14 May 2013 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130514184825/http://www.focus-fen.net/index.php?id=n271109 |url-status=live }} have indicated that they have stopped the process of becoming a party to the treaty.

On 17 February 2012, the Polish prime minister, Donald Tusk, announced that Poland will not ratify ACTA.{{cite web |url=http://pocitace.sme.sk/c/6264958/dohoda-acta-v-europe-pada-polsko-ju-odmietlo-prijat.html |title=Dohoda ACTA v Európe padá, Poľsko ju odmietlo prijať |trans-title=ACTA falls in Europe as Poland refuses to accept it |language=sk |access-date=19 February 2012 |archive-date=19 February 2012 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120219013242/http://pocitace.sme.sk/c/6264958/dohoda-acta-v-europe-pada-polsko-ju-odmietlo-prijat.html |url-status=live }}{{cite web |url=http://www.scotsman.com/news/international/poland_and_slovenia_back_away_from_acta_1_2124655 |title=Poland and Slovenia back away from ACTA |work=The Scotsman |date=18 February 2012 |access-date=6 July 2012 |archive-date=18 February 2012 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120218221135/http://www.scotsman.com/news/international/poland_and_slovenia_back_away_from_acta_1_2124655 |url-status=live }}{{cite news |author=Quinn Norton |title=How the European Internet rose up against ACTA |url=https://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/02/europe-acta |date=21 February 2012 |work=Wired News |access-date=22 February 2012 |archive-date=22 February 2012 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120222060925/http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/02/europe-acta/ |url-status=live }} On 21 February 2012, a news report noted that "many countries in Europe that have signed the treaty have set aside ratification in response to public outcry, effectively hampering the ratification and implementation of the treaty."

When Poland announced its intentions to sign the treaty on 18 January 2012,{{cite web |url=http://www.mkidn.gov.pl/media/docs/20120118-wniosek_ACTA.pdf |publisher=Polish Ministry of Culture and National Heritage |title=Letter regarding Signature |language=pl |date=16 January 2012 |access-date=3 February 2012 |archive-date=5 February 2012 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120205162424/http://www.mkidn.gov.pl/media/docs/20120118-wniosek_ACTA.pdf |url-status=live }} a number of Polish government websites, including those of the President and Polish Parliament, were shut down by denial of service attacks that started 21 January, akin to protests against SOPA and PIPA that had happened two days previously.{{cite news |title=UK Japan Trade Counterfeiting |url=http://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-japan-trade-counterfeiting-idUKTRE79018620111001 |date=1 October 2011 |access-date=22 January 2012 |work=Reuters |archive-date=6 January 2012 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120106182609/http://uk.reuters.com/article/2011/10/01/uk-japan-trade-counterfeiting-idUKTRE79018620111001 |url-status=dead }} Notwithstanding the ongoing protests, the Polish ambassador to Japan signed the treaty.{{citation needed|date=December 2020}}

On 22 February 2012, the European Commission asked the European Court of Justice to assess whether the ACTA agreement violates the EU's fundamental human rights and freedoms,{{cite web |url=http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=MEMO/12/128 |title=Statement by Commissioner Karel De Gucht on ACTA (Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement) |access-date=11 March 2012 |date=22 February 2012 |publisher=European Commission |archive-date=25 February 2012 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120225040013/http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=MEMO%2F12%2F128 |url-status=live }} thereby resulting in delay for the ratification process in the EU.{{cite news |title=Europe delays vote on anti-piracy law in face of protests |url=https://www.thestar.com/news/world/article/1134958--europe-delays-vote-on-anti-piracy-law-in-face-of-protests |date=22 February 2012 |work=Toronto Star |access-date=11 March 2012 }} However, INTA, the International Trade Committee of the European Parliament, in view of its exclusion from the negotiations, the secrecy of the negotiations, and the recent protests, moved to have its vote on the ratification take place in June or July 2012 as planned, in spite of the European Commission's objections.{{cite news |url=http://www.zdnet.co.uk/news/regulation/2012/03/28/acta-to-see-euro-vote-in-june-as-delay-averted-40154905/ |date=28 March 2012 |access-date=8 April 2012 |author=David Meyer |work=ZDNet UK |title=ACTA to see Euro vote in June as delay averted |archive-date=31 March 2012 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120331123159/http://www.zdnet.co.uk/news/regulation/2012/03/28/acta-to-see-euro-vote-in-june-as-delay-averted-40154905/ |url-status=live }}

On 2 May 2012, European Commissioner for Digital Agenda Neelie Kroes suggested in a speech in Berlin that ACTA would not come into force and welcomed openness in negotiations:{{cite news |work=ABC News |url=https://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory/eu-official-acta-law-16277540 |title=EU Official: ACTA unlikely to become law |date=4 May 2012 |access-date=4 May 2012}}

{{blockquote|We have recently seen how many thousands of people are willing to protest against rules that 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. We are now likely to be in a world without SOPA and without ACTA. Now we need to find solutions to make the Internet a place of freedom, openness, and innovation fit for all citizens, not just for the techno avant-garde.{{cite web|url=http://commentneelie.eu/sentence.php?s=2743 |work=CommentNeeli.eu |date=4 May 2012 |title=Excerpt from: Internet Freedom |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130429194750/http://commentneelie.eu/sentence.php?s=2743 |archive-date=29 April 2013 }} |European Commissioner Neelie Kroes }}

On 29 May 2012 the Dutch House of Representatives in two non-binding resolutions called upon the Dutch government not to sign ACTA and not to submit it to the House for ratification. In addition it requested the government not to vote in favor of similar treaties in the future.{{cite web |url=http://www.tweedekamer.nl/kamerstukken/verslagen/verslag.jsp?vj=2011-2012&nr=88 |title=Record of the proceedings of the Dutch House of Representatives |date=29 May 2012 |publisher=House of Representatives of the Netherlands |access-date=30 May 2012 |archive-date=24 January 2016 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160124160132/http://www.tweedekamer.nl/kamerstukken/verslagen/verslag.jsp?vj=2011-2012&nr=88 |url-status=live }}

The European Commission confirmed on 20 December 2012 that it was withdrawing Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) referral to the Court of Justice of the European Union (EU). This ended ACTA's process at EU level and confirms rejection of the treaty by the EU.{{Citation needed|date=March 2014}}

On 26 January 2012, after the signing of 22 European Member States Kader Arif, the European Parliament's rapporteur for ACTA, resigned, saying "I want to send a strong signal and alert the public opinion about this unacceptable situation. I will not take part in this masquerade.". He was replaced by David Martin.

On 12 April 2012, David Martin recommended that the European Parliament should reject ACTA, saying the intended benefits were far outweighed by the risks, and "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."{{cite web |title=EU rapporteur's draft recommendation |url=http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//NONSGML%2BCOMPARL%2BPE-486.174%2B02%2BDOC%2BPDF%2BV0//EN |format=PDF |publisher=European Parliament |access-date=3 April 2021 |archive-date=31 October 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201031220748/https://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-%2F%2FEP%2F%2FNONSGML%2BCOMPARL%2BPE-486.174%2B02%2BDOC%2BPDF%2BV0%2F%2FEN |url-status=live }}{{cite news |url=https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-17728045 |title=Euro MP David Martin dismisses anti-counterfeiting treaty |access-date=4 May 2012 |date=16 April 2012 |work=BBC News |archive-date=6 May 2012 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120506092345/http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-17728045 |url-status=live }}

ACTA was discussed in five parliamentary committees, all of which voted to reject the ACTA treaty, as follows:{{cite web |url=http://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/nl/pressroom/content/20120529IPR45936/html/ACTA-now-rejected-by-four-EP-committees |title=ACTA now rejected by four EP committees |access-date=5 June 2012 |date=17 June 2012 |publisher=European Parliament |archive-date=29 April 2013 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130429155605/http://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/nl/pressroom/content/20120529IPR45936/html/ACTA-now-rejected-by-four-EP-committees |url-status=live }}

These recommendations of the top 4 committees served as advice for the International Trade Committee, the lead committee on ACTA. On 21 June 2012, this committee recommended 19–12 that the EP reject the treaty. The full European Parliament voted on the issue on 4 July 2012{{cite web |url=https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2012/jun/21/acta-europe-vote-against |title=ACTA set to fail after Europe's trade committee votes against it |access-date=21 June 2012 |date=21 June 2012 |work=The Guardian |archive-date=9 May 2015 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150509002033/http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2012/jun/21/acta-europe-vote-against |url-status=live }} and declined consent to ACTA, effectively rejecting it, with 478 against to 39 in favour, and 165 abstentions.{{cite news |title=ACTA dealt major blow as Europe rejects the controversial treaty |url=http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57466330-38/acta-dealt-major-blow-as-europe-rejects-the-controversial-treaty/ |access-date=4 July 2012 |date=4 July 2012 |publisher=CNET |author=Zack Whittaker |archive-date=28 May 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200528204330/https://www.cnet.com/news/last-rites-for-acta-europe-rejects-antipiracy-treaty/ |url-status=live }}

It has been reported that the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) has stated they will not use the fast track negotiating authority (Trade Promotion Authority) to implement ACTA, but the form of a "sole executive agreement" instead.{{Cite journal|author1=Eddan Katz |author2=Gwen Hinze |title=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 |url=http://www.yjil.org/docs/pub/o-35-katz-hinze-ACTA-on-knowledge-economy.pdf |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120227154801/http://www.yjil.org/docs/pub/o-35-katz-hinze-ACTA-on-knowledge-economy.pdf |url-status=dead |archive-date=27 February 2012 |access-date=30 January 2012 |date=November 2009 |journal=Yale Journal of International Law }} While on 6 March 2012 Legal Adviser of the Department of State Harold Koh refused to back USTR's theory that it could enter any agreement that does not change U.S. law (but binds Congress not to change it) without Congressional consent, Koh described ACTA as a "congressional-executive agreement" that Congress approved of {{lang|la|ex-ante}}, citing the PRO-IP Act.{{cite web |title=Wyden Amendment Needed to Challenge Dubious ACTA Justification |author=Sean Flynn |work=infojustice.org |url=http://infojustice.org/archives/9072 |access-date=21 March 2012 |archive-date=21 March 2012 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120321170234/http://infojustice.org/archives/9072 |url-status=live }} This proposed method of adoption has encountered criticism in Congress.{{cite news |title=Sen. Wyden demands vote on American copyright, patent treaties |author=Nate Anderson |work=Ars Technica |url=https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2012/03/sen-wyden-demands-vote-on-american-copyright-patent-treaties.ars |date=20 March 2012 |access-date=14 June 2017 |archive-date=22 April 2012 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120422220729/http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2012/03/sen-wyden-demands-vote-on-american-copyright-patent-treaties.ars |url-status=live }} According to Senator Ron Wyden: "There are questions of constitutional authority surrounding whether the administration can enter into this agreement without Congress's approval ... Either way, when international accords, like ACTA, are conceived and constructed under a cloak of secrecy, it is hard to argue that they represent the broad interests of the general public. The controversy over ACTA should surprise no one." Later, on 20 March 2012, Senator Wyden noted, "I believe Congress should approve binding international agreements before the U.S. is obligated to comply with those agreements. This [is] a point where the administration and I disagree and is particularly true on matters that impact our nation’s ability to implement policies that encourage innovation."{{cite magazine |author=David Kravets |title=Copyright Treaty Requires Congressional Support, Senator Says |url=https://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/03/acta-congressional-approval/ |date=20 March 2012 |magazine=Wired News |access-date=21 March 2012 |archive-date=21 March 2012 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120321034252/http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/03/acta-congressional-approval/ |url-status=live }}

In June 2012, Ambassador Miriam Sapiro (a Deputy U.S. Trade Representative), presented the official White House position on ACTA as follows:{{cite web|author=Miriam Sapiro |title=Official Office of the US Trade Representative Response to 'End ACTA and Protect our right to privacy on the Internet the Role of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA)' |url=https://wwws.whitehouse.gov/petitions#!/response/role-anti-counterfeiting-trade-agreement-acta |date=June 2012 |publisher=The White House |access-date=17 June 2012 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20111124052154/https://wwws.whitehouse.gov/Petitions |archive-date=24 November 2011 }}

{{Cquote|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.|author=Miriam Sapiro |title="Response to 'End ACTA and Protect our right to privacy on the Internet'; the Role of ACTA". (June 2012)}}

ACTA establishes the ACTA committee in Article 36 as 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.{{Cite news|author=Vito Pilieci |title=Copyright deal could toughen rules governing info on iPods, computers |work=The Vancouver Sun |date=26 May 2008 |access-date=27 May 2008 |url=http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/story.html?id=ae997868-220b-4dae-bf4f-47f6fc96ce5e&p=1 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080601022602/http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/story.html?id=ae997868-220b-4dae-bf4f-47f6fc96ce5e&p=1 |archive-date=1 June 2008 |url-status=dead }} With regards to the reason for not pursuing ACTA through the G8, WTO, WIPO or other formal existing structures the European Commission explains that a free-standing agreement provides the most flexibility "to pursue this project among interested countries", while stating that "the membership and priorities of those organizations (G8, WTO, and WIPO) simply are not the most conducive to this kind of path breaking project."

The finalized agreement text{{cite web |title=Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement |url=http://www.international.gc.ca/trade-agreements-accords-commerciaux/topics-domaines/ip-pi/acta-text-acrc.aspx?lang=eng |date=15 April 2012 |access-date=16 October 2012 |format=PDF |publisher=Canadian Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade |archive-date=18 May 2013 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130518022348/http://www.international.gc.ca/trade-agreements-accords-commerciaux/topics-domaines/ip-pi/acta-text-acrc.aspx?lang=eng |url-status=live }} was published on 15 April 2011 and includes six chapters with 45 articles:

This Chapter describes the scope of the agreement as well as relations to other agreements. It asserts that obligations from other agreements still exist with entry into force of this agreement (Article 1) and that the agreement applies only those intellectual property rights existing in the country applying the treaty (Article 3). Countries may impose stricter measures than the treaty requires (Article 2) and should share (confidential) information for law enforcement purposes (Article 4). The treaty explicitly also applies to free zones (Article 5).

The legal framework set out in Chapter II is divided in five sections.

General obligations are requirements to implement the provisions in law, to have fair procedure as well as "proportionality between the seriousness of the infringement, the interests of third parties, and the applicable measures, remedies and penalties" (Article 6).

The sections provides that rights holders have access to civil or (if they exist) administrative procedures (Article 7) and to have the possibility for judges "to issue an order against a party to desist from an infringement" (Article 8). They may also require in civil procedure pirated copyright goods and counterfeit trademark goods to be destroyed (Article 10). According to Article 11, they may ask (alleged) infringers to provide information on the goods it "controls". Article 9 states that a Party's judicial authorities may consider {{lang|la|inter alia}} any legitimate measure of value submitted by a rights holder, including lost profits, the value of infringed property as per market price, or the suggested retail price. This clause has received considerable criticism for its validity, as well as its similarity to previously controversial attempts at establishing precedent to the same effect. According to the Foundation for a Free Information Infrastructure, the principle does not "reflect the economic loss suffered by the right holder".{{cite news |author=Jennifer Baker |title=ACTA Text Hurts Startups, Goes Beyond EU Law, Says FFII |date=4 April 2011 |work=IDG News |url=https://www.pcworld.com/article/227048/acta_text_hurts_startups_goes_beyond_eu_law_says_ffii.html |access-date=29 January 2012 |archive-date=3 April 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210403090051/https://www.pcworld.com/article/227048/article.html |url-status=live }} In a Business Line opinion piece, a professor from the Indian Institute of Foreign Trade's Centre for WTO Studies also explained that it would lead to "excess valuation" in infringement suits.{{cite news |author=Madhukar Sinha |title=IPR rules and their uncertain effects |date=2 June 2011 |url=http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/opinion/article2068519.ece |work=Business Line |access-date=29 January 2012 |archive-date=4 June 2011 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110604202822/http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/opinion/article2068519.ece |url-status=live }}

At borders, officials may act on suspect goods on their own initiative or upon request of a "rights holder". For goods in transit, the requirements do not have to be enacted by a state (Article 16). "Small consignment" for commercial use are included in the border provisions, while "goods of a non-commercial nature contained in travellers’ personal luggage" are excluded from the scope (Article 14).

Section 4 of ACTA deals with the criminal enforcement of IPRS according to Professor Michael Blakeney. The primary focus of the section (in Article 23) is the criminalisation of wilful trademark counterfeiting or copyright or related rights piracy on a commercial scale.

At least "wilful trademark counterfeiting or copyright or related rights piracy on a commercial scale" should be punishable under criminal law.

According to European Digital Rights, the article "provides an extremely low threshold" when considering that the scope includes "acts" and because consequences for infringement can include criminal penalties.{{cite web|url=http://www.edri.org/files/EDRI_acta_series_2_20120117.pdf |title=ACTA – Criminal sanctions |access-date=5 February 2012 |date=17 January 2012 |publisher=European Digital Rights |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120131215125/http://www.edri.org/files/EDRI_acta_series_2_20120117.pdf |archive-date=31 January 2012 |url-status=live }} EDRi also outlines an absence of definitions for associated constructs, such as "aiding and abetting", "commercial scale", and "economic advantage", which it describes as "simply inappropriate in a key provision, on whose meaning the proportionality and the legality, of the Agreement rests".

Penalties that Parties should have in their criminal system should "include imprisonment as well as monetary fines", which are sufficiently high for discouragement of actions forbidden under the treaty.

In the digital environment, also Civil and Criminal enforcement should be available "to permit effective action against an act of infringement of intellectual property rights that takes place in the digital environment" (Article 27, paragraph 1). Furthermore, infringement over digital networks (possibly including "the unlawful use of means of widespread distribution for infringing purposes") should be enforced in a manner, which "preserves fundamental principles such as freedom of expression, fair process, and privacy" (Paragraph 2). Against circumvention of systems to prevent copying measures should be implemented (Paragraph 6).

Critics of this article, such as the European Digital Rights, have raised concerns that its emphasis on the role of corporations in enforcement "promotes the policing and even punishment of alleged infringements outside normal judicial frameworks", while failing to "ensure effective remedies against such interferences with fundamental rights" despite "vague references to 'fair process' in the text [that] are not backed up by mandatory processes requiring respect for the Rule of Law" in Article 21 of the European Union's Maastricht Treaty.{{cite web|url=http://www.edri.org/files/EDRI_acta_series_1_20120116.pdf |title=ACTA and its impact on fundamental rights |access-date=5 February 2012 |date=16 January 2012 |publisher=European Digital Rights |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120214031653/http://www.edri.org/files/EDRI_acta_series_1_20120116.pdf |archive-date=14 February 2012 |url-status=live }}{{cite web|url=http://www.edri.org/files/EDRI_acta_series_4_20120119.pdf |title=The impact of the ACTA on the EU's international relations |access-date=5 February 2012 |publisher=European Digital Rights |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120127061011/http://www.edri.org/files/EDRI_acta_series_4_20120119.pdf |archive-date=27 January 2012 |quote=The preamble of ACTA, as well as the 'Digital Chapter' specifically promotes policing and enforcement through 'cooperation' between private companies. This is an obvious violation of Article 21 of the TEU, which re-states the EU's obligation to support democracy and the rule of law in its international relations. |url-status=live }}

Parties are expected to cultivate expertise within agencies tasked with enforcing intellectual property rights, promote internal coordination, and facilitate joint actions. They are also compelled to collect and utilize statistical data, as well as "other relevant information concerning intellectual property rights infringements", to prevent and combat infringement as necessary. The article also indicates that parties shall "endeavour to promote, where appropriate, the establishment and maintenance of formal or informal mechanisms, such as advisory groups, whereby [their] competent authorities may receive the views of right holders and other relevant stakeholders."

Parties may consult stakeholders or the intellectual property authorities of another party to identify and mitigate risks. Information, including but not limited to information that assists in identifying and targeting suspicious shipments, may be shared between parties for the purposes of border enforcement. Should an importing party seize infringing goods, it may supply such information to assist an exporting party in pursuing infringers.

Chapter V contains three articles:

• Article 33: International Cooperation
• Article 34: Information Sharing
• Article 35: Capacity Building and Technical Assistance

In Article 36, the ACTA committee is established as governing body of the treaty in which all parties are represented. The body is not involved in individual cases, but monitors implementation, can formally propose changes to the convention (on the suggestion of a Party) and decides on the admittance of WTO-members that were not present at the negotiations. The committee decides by consensus. Parties establish a contact point (Article 37) that acts as a primary contact with regards to the execution of the treaty and are required to "shall accord sympathetic consideration" to requests for cooperation on matters regarding the convention (Article 38).

Chapter VI is the treaty's last chapter. It outlines principles and procedures regarding the treaty's status and execution.

The article specifies that the agreement remains open for signature until 1 May 2013 by its negotiators, as well as any other World Trade Organization member that the negotiators support by consensus.

Conditions necessary for the treaty to become effective are defined, which include six parties submitting instruments of ratification, acceptance, or approval to the depositary, as well as a thirty-day interim waiting period.

The process for withdrawal is outlined, which entails a party submitting written notification to the depositary and becomes effective 180 days after receipt.Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement, Article 41 This process would also be subject to various national guidelines.

Parties may submit proposed amendments to the committee for review, which would then determine whether or not the proposed amendment should be presented for potential ratification, acceptance, or approval. Successful amendments would become effective 90 days after all parties have provided their respective instruments of ratification, acceptance, or approval to the depositary.{{Cite web|title=Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement: Australian Treaty National Interest Analysis |page=7 |year=2011 |url=http://www.aph.gov.au/house/committee/jsct/21november2011/treaties/anti_counterfeiting_nia.pdf |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120215045642/http://www.aph.gov.au/house/committee/jsct/21november2011/treaties/anti_counterfeiting_nia.pdf |url-status=dead |archive-date=15 February 2012 }}Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement, Article 42

In a report to the Australian Joint Standing Committee on Treaties, Kimberlee Weatherall, an associate professor at the University of Queensland, assessed the article in saying "it might be argued that the text of ACTA could be fleshed out through guidelines on an ongoing basis, with possible amendments in the longer term."{{Cite book |contribution=Submission of Associate Professor Kimberlee Weatherall |title=Joint Standing Committee on Treaties Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement |editor=Kimberlee Weatherall |publisher=Berkeley Electronic Press |place=Sydney |page=17 |date=27 January 2012 |contribution-url=http://works.bepress.com/kimweatherall/26/ }}{{Dead link|date=August 2021 |bot=InternetArchiveBot |fix-attempted=yes }} Citing the relationship with Article 33, she added that "it might further be argued that the exhortations to 'promote cooperation, where appropriate, among [the Parties'] competent authorities', particularly in conjunction with the existence of regular meetings and exchange of information about enforcement practices, creates the basic framework within which more detailed mechanisms can be developed over time".

After the date in Article 39 passes, any WTO member nation may seek to accede into the agreement. The terms of acceptance would be decided by the committee on an individual, case-by-case basis. The treaty would enter into force for successful applicants thirty days after receipt of its instrument by the depositary.

The treaty makes equally authoritative English, French and Spanish versions of the text, which for the purposes of signature are part of a single document.

Article 45 is the final text of the treaty. It elects the Government of Japan as depositary.

Opponents have criticized the act for its adverse effects on fundamental civil and digital rights, including freedom of expression and communication privacy.{{cite news |author=David Jolly |title=A New Question of Internet Freedom |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/06/technology/06iht-acta06.html |date=5 February 2012 |work=The New York Times |access-date=5 February 2012 |archive-date=6 February 2012 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120206133223/http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/06/technology/06iht-acta06.html |url-status=live }}{{cite news |title=The world faces major challenges |date=18 December 2011 |url=http://action.ffii.org/acta/Analysis |publisher=Foundation for a Free Information Infrastructure |access-date=29 January 2012 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120129232412/http://action.ffii.org/acta/Analysis |archive-date=29 January 2012 |url-status=dead }} The Electronic Frontier Foundation among others, have derided the exclusion of civil society groups, developing countries and the general public from the agreement's negotiation process and have described it as policy laundering.{{cite news|author1=Maira Sutton |author2=Parker Higgins |title=We Have Every Right to Be Furious About ACTA |date=27 January 2012 |url=https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2012/01/we-have-every-right-be-furious-about-acta |publisher=Electronic Frontier Foundation |access-date=3 February 2012 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120206030930/https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2012/01/we-have-every-right-be-furious-about-acta |archive-date=6 February 2012 |url-status=live }}{{cite web |url=http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/3013/135/ |title=Government Should Lift Veil on ACTA Secrecy |access-date=29 January 2012 |author=Michael Geist |date=9 June 2008 |archive-date=5 December 2008 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20081205070642/http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/3013/135/ |url-status=dead }} The signature of the EU and many of its member states resulted in the resignation, in protest, of European Parliament's appointed rapporteur (Kader Arif), as well as widespread protests across Europe.{{cite news |author=Mike Masnick |title=European Parliament official in charge of ACTA quits, and denounces the 'Masquerade' behind ACTA |date=26 January 2011 |url=http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120126/11014317553/european-parliament-official-charge-acta-quits-denounces-masquerade-behind-acta.shtml |work=Techdirt |access-date=27 January 2012 |archive-date=29 January 2012 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120129152229/http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120126/11014317553/european-parliament-official-charge-acta-quits-denounces-masquerade-behind-acta.shtml |url-status=live }}{{cite news |author=Iain Thomson |title=Most EU states sign away internet rights, ratify ACTA treaty |date=27 January 2012 |url=https://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/01/27/eu_signs_acta/ |work=The Register |access-date=27 January 2012 |archive-date=27 January 2012 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120127144237/http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/01/27/eu_signs_acta/ |url-status=live }}{{cite news|title=Act against Acta: Demonstrators Protest against Poland Signing |url=http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/articles/287236/20120125/act-against-acta-demonstrators-protest-poland-signing.htm |newspaper=International Business Times |author=Gianluca Mezzofiore |date=25 January 2012 |access-date=25 January 2012 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120128091944/http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/articles/287236/20120125/act-against-acta-demonstrators-protest-poland-signing.htm |archive-date=28 January 2012 }}

The Electronic Frontier Foundation opposes ACTA, calling for more public spotlight on the proposed treaty.{{cite web |title=Sunlight for ACTA |publisher=Electronic Frontier Foundation |url=https://www.eff.org/action/sunlight-acta |access-date=5 July 2008 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080626103510/http://www.eff.org/action/sunlight-acta |archive-date=26 June 2008 |url-status=live }} Since May 2008 discussion papers and other documents relating to the negotiation of ACTA have been uploaded to WikiLeaks, and newspaper reports about the secret negotiations swiftly followed.{{Cite news |author=Carly Weeks |title=Anti-piracy strategy will help government to spy, critic says |url=https://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20080526.COPYRIGHT26//TPStory/National |work=The Globe and Mail |date=26 May 2008 |access-date=27 May 2008 |archive-date=29 May 2008 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080529230325/http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20080526.COPYRIGHT26/TPStory/National }}{{cite web |url=http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=11870 |title=WikiLeaks Airs U.S. Plans to Kill Pirate Bay, Monitor ISPs With Multinational ACTA Proposal |work=Daily Tech |date=23 May 2008 |author=Jason Mick |access-date=25 May 2008 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080708042239/http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=11870 |archive-date=8 July 2008 |url-status=dead }}

In June 2008, Canadian academic Michael Geist, writing for Copyright News, argued that "Government Should Lift Veil on ACTA Secrecy", noting that before documents leaked on the Internet, ACTA was shrouded in secrecy. Coverage of the documents by the Toronto Star "sparked widespread opposition as Canadians worry about the prospect of a trade deal that could lead to invasive searches of personal computers and increased surveillance of online activities". Geist argued that public disclosure of the draft ACTA treaty "might put an end to fears about iPod-searching border guards" and that it "could focus attention on other key concerns including greater Internet service provider filtering of content, heightened liability for websites that link to allegedly infringing content, and diminished privacy for Internet users". Geist also argued that greater transparency would lead to a more inclusive process, highlighting that the ACTA negotiations have excluded both civil society groups as well as developing countries. Geist reported that "reports suggest that trade negotiators have been required to sign non-disclosure agreements for fear of word of the treaty's provisions leaking to the public". He argued that there is a need for "cooperation from all stakeholders to battle counterfeiting concerns" and that "an effective strategy requires broader participation and regular mechanisms for feedback".{{cite web |author=Michael Geist |title=Government Should Lift Veil on ACTA Secrecy |url=http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/3013/135/ |date=9 June 2008 |access-date=28 November 2008 |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20081205070642/http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/3013/135/ |archive-date=5 December 2008 |url-status=live }}

In November 2008, the European Commission responded to these allegations as follows:

{{blockquote|text=It is alleged that the negotiations are undertaken under a veil of secrecy. This is not correct. For reasons of efficiency, it is only natural that intergovernmental negotiations dealing with issues that have an economic impact, do not take place in public and that negotiators are bound by a certain level of discretion. However, there has never been any intention to hide the fact that negotiations took place, or to conceal the ultimate objectives of the negotiations, the positions taken in European Commission Trade 5/6 the negotiations or even details on when and where these negotiations are taking place.

The EU and other partners (US, Japan, Canada, etc.) announced their intention to start negotiations of ACTA on 23 October 2007, in well publicised press releases. Since then we have talked about ACTA on dozens of occasions, including at the European Parliament (INTA committee meetings), and in numerous well-attended seminars. Commission organised a stakeholders' consultation meeting on 23 June in Brussels, open to all – industry and citizens and attended by more than 100 participants. US, Australia, Canada, New Zealand and other ACTA partners did the same.|author=European Commission statement (November 2008)|multiline=yes}}

As another indicator of the way that the ACTA process was handled by the EU, the Council of Ministers officially adopted ACTA at a meeting of the Fisheries Council.{{cite web |url=http://www.iptegrity.com/index.php/acta/726-eu-council-gives-fishy-go-ahead-for-acta |title=EU Council gives fishy go-ahead for ACTA |work=Iptegrity.com |date=18 December 2011 |access-date=17 August 2013 |archive-date=18 March 2014 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140318123658/http://www.iptegrity.com/index.php/acta/726-eu-council-gives-fishy-go-ahead-for-acta |url-status=live }}

To coincide with the negotiation round InternetNZ, a nonprofit organisation, held a PublicACTA event on 10 April 2010 to discuss the known and likely content of the ACTA draft agreement and to develop a statement on ACTA.{{cite news |url= http://www.nbr.co.nz/article/internetnz-launches-anti-acta-petition-121331 |title= InternetNZ launches petition to limit ACTA |work=National Business Review |date=12 April 2010 |access-date=27 June 2010 |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20100602123319/http://www.nbr.co.nz/article/internetnz-launches-anti-acta-petition-121331 |archive-date= 2 June 2010 |url-status=live }} At the event, the Wellington Declaration was developed by over 100 participants, and was published the following day along with a petition for its endorsement. By 13 April, it had received 6,645 signatures. The Wellington Declaration and the petition was given to the government of New Zealand, which delivered the Declaration to the other negotiating countries.{{cite web |website=Publicacta.org.nz |url=http://publicacta.org.nz/wellington-declaration/|title=The Wellington Declaration |access-date=16 April 2010 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100814164925/http://publicacta.org.nz/wellington-declaration/|archive-date=14 August 2010}}{{cite web |title=ACTA - Sign the Wellington Declaration |url=https://nzccl.org.nz/acta-sign-wellington-declaration/ |website=NZ Council for Civil Liberties |access-date=12 March 2023 |language=en-NZ |date=13 April 2010}}{{cite web |title=ACTA Negotiation Terms To Change Online Gambling |url=http://publicacta.org.nz/wellington-declaration/ |website=Publicacta.org.nz |access-date=12 March 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230218032620/https://publicacta.org.nz/wellington-declaration/ |archive-date=18 February 2023 |date=9 April 2019}}

File:ACTA Der Big Bang der Netzpolitik WMDE iRights.pdf

An open letter signed by many organizations, including Consumers International, European Digital Rights (EDRi, an umbrella group for 32 European civil rights and privacy NGOs), the Free Software Foundation (FSF), the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), ASIC, and the Free Knowledge Institute, states that "the current draft of ACTA would profoundly restrict the fundamental rights and freedoms of European citizens, most notably the freedom of expression and communication privacy."{{cite web|url=http://freeknowledge.eu/acta-a-global-threat-to-freedoms-open-letter |title=ACTA: A Global Threat to Freedoms (Open Letter) |publisher=Free Knowledge Institute |access-date=29 January 2012 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120130023554/http://freeknowledge.eu/acta-a-global-threat-to-freedoms-open-letter |archive-date=30 January 2012 }} The FSF argues that ACTA will create a culture of surveillance and suspicion.{{cite web |url=http://www.fsf.org/campaigns/acta/ |title=Speak out against ACTA |publisher=Free Software Foundation |access-date=22 July 2008 |archive-date=2 February 2012 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120202044422/http://www.fsf.org/campaigns/acta/ |url-status=live }} Aaron Shaw, Research Fellow at the Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University, argues that "ACTA would create unduly harsh legal standards that do not reflect contemporary principles of democratic government, free market exchange, or civil liberties. Even though the precise terms of ACTA remain undecided, the negotiants' preliminary documents reveal many troubling aspects of the proposed agreement" such as removing "legal safeguards that protect Internet Service Providers from liability for the actions of their subscribers", in effect giving ISPs no option but to comply with privacy invasions. Shaw further says that "[ACTA] would also facilitate privacy violations by trademark and copyright holders against private citizens suspected of infringement activities without any sort of legal due process".{{Cite journal|author=Aaron Shaw |title=The Problem with the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (and what to do about it) |url=http://kestudies.org/node/20/ |journal=KEStudies |volume=2 |date=April 2009 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120215065354/http://www.kestudies.org/node/20 |archive-date=15 February 2012 }}

The FSF has published "Speak out against ACTA", stating that the ACTA threatens free software by creating a culture "in which the freedom that is required to produce free software is seen as dangerous and threatening rather than creative, innovative, and exciting." ACTA would also require that existing ISPs no longer host free software that can access copyrighted media; this would substantially affect many sites that offer free software or host software projects such as SourceForge. Specifically, the FSF argues that ACTA will make it more difficult and expensive to distribute free software via file sharing and peer-to-peer (P2P) technologies like BitTorrent, which are currently used to distribute large amounts of free software. The FSF also argues that ACTA will make it harder for users of free operating systems to play non-free media because digital rights management (DRM) protected media would not be legally playable with free software.

On 10 March 2010, the European Parliament adopted a resolution{{cite web |url=http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=TA&reference=P7-TA-2010-0058&language=EN&ring=P7-RC-2010-0154 |title=Texts adopted – Wednesday, 10 March 2010 – Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) – P7_TA(2010)0058 |work=Europa |date=10 March 2010 |access-date=29 January 2012 |archive-date=22 July 2010 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100722060547/http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=TA&reference=P7-TA-2010-0058&language=EN&ring=P7-RC-2010-0154 |url-status=live }} criticizing the ACTA with 663 in favor of the resolution and 13 against, arguing that "in order to respect fundamental rights, such as the right to freedom of expression and the right to privacy", certain changes in the ACTA content and the process should be made.

According to French EP member Kader Arif, "The problem with ACTA is that, by focusing on the fight against violation of intellectual property rights in general, it treats a generic drug just as a counterfeited drug. This means the patent holder can stop the shipping of the drugs to a developing country, seize the cargo and even order the destruction of the drugs as a preventive measure." He continued, "Generic medicines are not counterfeited medicines; they are not the fake version of a drug; they are a generic version of a drug, produced either because the patent on the original drug has expired, or because a country has to put in place public health policies," he said.

A number of countries such as India and African nations have histories of seeking generic cheaper versions of expensive drugs for infections such as HIV, something that has often been resisted by pharmaceutical companies. "There are international agreements, such as the TRIPS Agreement, which foresees this last possibility," he said. "They're particularly important for developing countries that cannot afford to pay for patented HIV drugs, for example." Arif has stated ACTA would limit the freedom of countries such as India to determine their own medical choices.{{cite news |title=ACTA goes too far, says MEP |author=Charles Arthur |url=https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2012/feb/01/acta-goes-too-far-kader-arif |newspaper=The Guardian |date=1 February 2012 |access-date=4 February 2011 |archive-date=4 March 2014 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140304144334/http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2012/feb/01/acta-goes-too-far-kader-arif |url-status=live }}

Also the non-governmental organization Médecins Sans Frontières has taken a stance against ACTA{{cite web |url=http://www.msfaccess.org/common-tags/acta |title=The Access Campaign: ACTA |publisher=Médecins Sans Frontières |access-date=2 July 2012 |archive-date=6 June 2012 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120606094505/http://www.msfaccess.org/common-tags/acta |url-status=live }} as a part of their Access Campaign, a campaign promoting the development and access to "life-saving and life prolonging medicines".{{cite web |url=http://www.msfaccess.org/the-access-campaign |title=The Access Campaign: About Us |publisher=Médecins Sans Frontières |access-date=2 July 2012 |archive-date=24 June 2012 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120624014642/http://msfaccess.org/the-access-campaign |url-status=live }} In their report A blank cheque for abuse: ACTA & its Impact on Access to Medicines, Médecins Sans Frontières concludes that ACTA has "fatal consequences on access to medicines", furthermore that the agreement "does nothing to address the problem of poor quality and unsafe medicines" and finally that ACTA "undermines existing international declarations to protect public health", circumventing the Doha Declaration.{{cite web |url=http://www.msfaccess.org/sites/default/files/MSF_assets/Access/Docs/Access_Briefing_ACTABlankCheque_ENG_2012.pdf |title=The Access Campaign: ACTA Briefing |publisher=Médecins Sans Frontières |access-date=2 July 2012 |archive-date=6 June 2012 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120606100101/http://www.msfaccess.org/sites/default/files/MSF_assets/Access/Docs/Access_Briefing_ACTABlankCheque_ENG_2012.pdf |url-status=live }} Michael Gylling Nielsen, the executive of the Danish division of Médecins Sans Frontières, has in a statement to the media said that "In the end, this is a question of life and death", elaborating his point by mentioning the "possible consequences" of the treaty that "the hundreds of thousands of people who for example have HIV/AIDS will not get the treatment they need".{{cite news |title=Actaavtalet "dödar" i tredje världen |trans-title=Acta Agreement "kills" in the Third World |url=http://www.svd.se/nyheter/utrikes/actaavtalet-dodar-i-tredje-varlden_6842553.svd |newspaper=Svenska Dagbladet |date=11 February 2012 |access-date=2 July 2012 |language=sv |archive-date=13 February 2012 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120213072228/http://www.svd.se/nyheter/utrikes/actaavtalet-dodar-i-tredje-varlden_6842553.svd |url-status=live }}{{cite news |title=Actaavtalet "dödar" i tredje världen |trans-title=Acta Agreement "kills" in the Third World |url=https://www.dn.se/ekonomi/actaavtalet-dodar-i-tredje-varlden/ |newspaper=Dagens Nyheter |date=11 February 2012 |access-date=2 July 2012 |language=sv |archive-date=3 June 2012 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120603094819/http://www.dn.se/ekonomi/actaavtalet-dodar-i-tredje-varlden |url-status=live }}

Nate Anderson with Ars Technica pointed out that ACTA encourages service providers to collect and provide information about suspected infringers by giving them "safe harbor from certain legal threats". Similarly, it provides for criminalization of copyright infringement on a commercial scale, granting law enforcement the powers to perform criminal investigation, arrests and pursue criminal citations or prosecution of suspects who may have infringed on copyright on a commercial scale. It also allows criminal investigations and invasive searches to be performed against individuals for whom there is no probable cause, and in that regard weakens the presumption of innocence and allows what would in the past have been considered unlawful searches. Additional signatories would have to accept ACTA's terms without much scope for negotiation.{{cite web|title=The real ACTA threat (it's not iPod-scanning border guards) |work=Ars Technica |url=https://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080602-the-real-acta-threat-its-not-ipod-scanning-border-guards.html |author=Nate Anderson |date=2 June 2008 |access-date=14 June 2008 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080605004747/http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080602-the-real-acta-threat-its-not-ipod-scanning-border-guards.html |archive-date=5 June 2008 |url-status=live }}

From 16 to 18 June 2010, a conference was held at the Washington College of Law, attended by "over 90 academics, practitioners and public interest organizations from six continents". Their conclusions were published on 23 June 2010 on the American University Washington College of Law website. They found "that the terms of the publicly released draft of ACTA threaten numerous public interests, including every concern specifically disclaimed by negotiators." A group of over 75 law professors signed a letter to President Obama demanding a host of changes to the agreement. The letter alleges that no meaningful transparency has been in evidence.

{{See also|Stop Online Piracy Act|PROTECT IP Act|Protests against SOPA and PIPA|l2=Protect IP Act}}

Connor Adams Sheets of the International Business Times outlined five categories where digital rights advocates compared but expressed greater concern about ACTA than SOPA. Among these were the treaty's broader international nature, its fundamental lack of transparency, the relative ease of enactment, the degree of support by signatories, and a lack of visibility on the global political stage.{{cite news|author=Connor Sheets |title=ACTA vs. SOPA: Five Reasons ACTA is Scarier Threat to Internet Freedom |date=24 January 2011 |url=http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/286925/20120124/acta-sopa-reasons-scarier-threat-internet-freedom.htm |work=International Business Times |access-date=29 January 2012 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120126141055/http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/286925/20120124/acta-sopa-reasons-scarier-threat-internet-freedom.htm |archive-date=26 January 2012 |url-status=live }} Forbes writer E.D. Kain compared the characteristics of ACTA with that of SOPA and PIPA, noting that they were each "defined by [their] opacity: secret negotiations, closed door talks, no public discussion."{{cite news|author=E.D. Kain |title=Final Draft of ACTA Watered Down, TPP Still Dangerous on IP Rules |date=28 January 2012 |url=https://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2012/01/28/final-draft-of-acta-watered-down-tpp-still-dangerous-on-ip-rules/ |work=Forbes |access-date=29 January 2012 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120128180620/http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2012/01/28/final-draft-of-acta-watered-down-tpp-still-dangerous-on-ip-rules/ |archive-date=28 January 2012 |url-status=live }}

In September 2008, a number of interest groups urged parties to the ACTA negotiations to disclose the language of the evolving agreement. In an open letter, the groups argued that: "Because the text of the treaty and relevant discussion documents remain secret, the public has no way of assessing whether and to what extent these and related concerns are merited." The interest groups included: the Consumers Union, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, Essential Action, IP Justice, Knowledge Ecology International, Public Knowledge, Global Trade Watch, the US Public Interest Research Group, IP Left (Korea), the Canadian Library Association, the Consumers Union of Japan, Consumer Focus (UK) and Médecins Sans Frontières' Campaign for Essential Medicines.{{cite magazine |url=http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/09/international-i.html |title=Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement: Fact or Fiction? |magazine=Wired |date=15 September 2008 |access-date=8 December 2008 |archive-date=24 December 2008 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20081224045725/http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/09/international-i.html |url-status=live }} The Electronic Frontier Foundation and Public Knowledge filed a Freedom of Information Act request, which was denied.{{cite web| url=https://www.eff.org/issues/acta |title=What is ACTA? |publisher=Electronic Frontier Foundation |access-date=1 December 2008 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20081127020704/http://www.eff.org/issues/acta |archive-date=27 November 2008 |url-status=live }}

A coalition of concerned organisations submitted to the responsible Australian Government department, the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade.{{cite web|title=Principles for ACTA negotiations |url=http://www.digital.org.au/submission/documents/PrinciplesforACTAnegotiations.pdf |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090106160743/http://www.digital.org.au/submission/documents/PrinciplesforACTAnegotiations.pdf |archive-date=6 January 2009 }}

The submission agreed that reducing counterfeiting is important where it endangers consumer health or safety, or constitutes commercial scale infringement. However, the coalition urged that pursuit of that goal should not threaten legitimate commercial, social, innovative and creative activities, the rights of consumers or the free flow of information. The coalition noted the current proposed treaty raised serious concerns with respect to transparency, increased customs search powers, increased penalties for IP infringement, and lack of due process.

The coalition consisted of:

• the Australian Digital Alliance – a public interest copyright organisation advocating for an appropriately balanced copyright regime;
• the Australian Library and Information Association – the peak professional organisation for the Australian library and information services sector;
• Choice – a not-for-profit consumer organisation that campaigns on behalf of Australian consumers; and
• the Internet Industry Association – Australia's national Internet industry organisation that provides policy input to government and advocacy on a range of issues.

The University of Ottawa's Canadian Internet Policy and Public Interest Clinic filed an Access to Information Act request to see the government's position but received only a document stating the title of the agreement, with everything else blacked out.

In November 2008, the Foundation for a Free Information Infrastructure requested secret Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) documents from the EU Council, specifically naming twelve documents to be published.{{cite press release |url=http://press.ffii.org/Press_releases/FFII_opposes_stealth_legislation%2C_demands_ACTA_documents |title=FFII opposes stealth legislation, demands ACTA documents |date=3 November 2008 |access-date=4 February 2012 |publisher=Foundation for a Free Information Infrastructure |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090503123622/http://press.ffii.org/Press_releases/FFII_opposes_stealth_legislation%2C_demands_ACTA_documents |archive-date=3 May 2009 }} The request was denied by the EU council, stating that "disclosure of this information could impede the proper conduct of the negotiations, would weaken the position of the European Union in these negotiations and might affect relations with the third parties concerned".{{cite press release|url=http://press.ffii.org/Press_releases/EU_Council_refuses_to_release_secret_ACTA_documents |date=10 November 2008 |title=EU Council refuses to release secret ACTA documents |access-date=4 February 2012 |publisher=Foundation for a Free Information Infrastructure |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090501081045/http://press.ffii.org/Press_releases/EU_Council_refuses_to_release_secret_ACTA_documents |archive-date=1 May 2009 }} In March 2010, the European Parliament passed a resolution demanding greater transparency in public affairs, which among other things called on the European Commission to make public all documents relating to the negotiations.{{cite web |url=http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=TA&reference=P7-TA-2010-0058&language=EN&ring=P7-RC-2010-0154 |title=European Parliament resolution of 10 March 2010 on the transparency and state of play of the ACTA negotiations |publisher=European Parliament |date=10 March 2010 |access-date=7 February 2012 |archive-date=22 July 2010 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100722060547/http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=TA&reference=P7-TA-2010-0058&language=EN&ring=P7-RC-2010-0154 |url-status=live }}

In August 2005, a coalition{{cite web|url=http://acta.net.nz |title=acta.net.nz coalition |access-date=20 March 2010 |author=acta.net.nz |date=20 March 2010 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100308015940/http://acta.net.nz/ |archive-date=8 March 2010 }} of NGOs and individuals formed to request more transparency in ACTA negotiations. At briefings held by the Ministry of Economic Development (MED) and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade (MFAT) on 16 December 2009, representatives from the coalition organisations supported the New Zealand negotiators stated desire to call for more transparency. In December 2009 two New Zealand members of Parliament, Clare Curran (Labour) and Peter Dunne (United Future) also publicly questioned the need for secrecy.{{cite web|url=http://blog.labour.org.nz/index.php/2009/12/04/whats-the-need-for-secrecy/ |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20091205155042/http://blog.labour.org.nz/index.php/2009/12/04/whats-the-need-for-secrecy/ |url-status=dead |archive-date=5 December 2009 |title=What's the need for Secrecy? |access-date=12 April 2009 |author=Clare Curran |date=12 April 2009 |publisher=New Zealand Labour Party }}{{cite web|url=http://www.unitedfuture.org.nz/default,1286,dunne_what_are_we_signing_up_to_mr_power.sm |title=Dunne: What are we signing up to, Mr Power? |access-date=12 April 2009 |author=Peter Dunne |date=12 April 2009 |publisher=United Future |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100123221752/http://www.unitedfuture.org.nz/default%2C1286%2Cdunne_what_are_we_signing_up_to_mr_power.sm |archive-date=23 January 2010 }}

In March 2010, Tech Liberty, a New Zealand digital civil rights organisation, received a response to its Official Information Act request on ACTA.{{cite web |url=http://techliberty.org.nz/acta-the-nz-official-information-requests/ |title=TechLiberty's Official Information Act request on ACTA |access-date=17 March 2010 |author=Thomas Beagle |date=17 March 2010 |publisher=TechLiberty |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100324044912/http://techliberty.org.nz/acta-the-nz-official-information-requests/ |archive-date=24 March 2010 |url-status=live }} It was given letters from the Ministry of Economic Development and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade plus the May 2008 cabinet paper{{cite web |url=http://techliberty.org.nz/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/ACTA-Cabinet-Paper.pdf |title=NZ's MED 2008 Cabinet paper on ACTA |access-date=21 March 2010 |author=New Zealand Ministry of Economic Development |date=5 July 2008 |publisher=TechLiberty |archive-date=21 May 2010 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100521234839/http://techliberty.org.nz/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/ACTA-Cabinet-Paper.pdf |url-status=live }} in which the New Zealand government agreed to participate in ACTA. Portions of the cabinet paper, and answers to questions posed by TechLiberty, were withheld including the venue for the April 2010 ACTA negotiations, the cabinet discussion paper on participation in ACTA, and all copies of draft negotiation texts, and all documents expressing New Zealand's negotiating position. This information was withheld under Official Information Act provisions allowing for withholding of information where it would prejudice the international relations of the Government of New Zealand, where it would affect the privacy of natural persons, where it was required to maintain the effective conduct of public affairs, and where withholding information was required to enable the government to carry on negotiations (including commercial and industrial negotiations).

In April 2010 a coalition of NZ organisations ran the PublicACTA event immediately prior to the negotiation round held in Wellington New Zealand. At the PublicACTA event participants drafted the Wellington Declaration. The Wellington Declaration was delivered to the New Zealand negotiators, who provided it to representatives from all the other negotiating countries. Following the Wellington negotiation round in April 2010 the text of ACTA was released publicly. This was the only time this occurred during the ACTA negotiations.

Both the Bush administration and the Obama administration had rejected requests to make the text of ACTA public, with the White House saying that disclosure would cause "damage to the national security."{{cite web |author=Declan McCullagh |url=http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-20004450-38.html |title=Google attorney slams ACTA copyright treaty |publisher=CNET |date=7 May 2010 |access-date=29 January 2012 |archive-date=9 November 2011 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20111109083735/http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-20004450-38.html |url-status=live }} In 2009, Knowledge Ecology International filed a Freedom of Information Act request in the United States, but their entire request was denied. The Office of the United States Trade Representative's Freedom of Information office stated the request was withheld for being material "properly classified in the interest of national security."{{cite news |url=http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-love/obama-administration-rule_b_174450.html |title=Obama Administration Rules Texts of New IPR Agreement are State Secrets |access-date=12 March 2009 |author=James Love |date=12 March 2009 |work=HuffPost |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20090316011517/http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-love/obama-administration-rule_b_174450.html |archive-date= 16 March 2009 |url-status=live }} US Senators Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and Sherrod Brown (D-OH) penned a letter on 23 November 2009, asking the United States Trade Representative to make the text of the ACTA public.{{cite web |url=http://keionline.org/sites/default/files/sanders_brown_acta.pdf |title=Letter To The United States Trade Representative |date=23 November 2008 |author=US Senators Sanders and Brown |publisher=Knowledge Ecology International |access-date=24 November 2009 |archive-date=15 February 2012 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120215045641/http://keionline.org/sites/default/files/sanders_brown_acta.pdf |url-status=live }}

Following the drafting of the Wellington Declaration{{cite web |archive-date=18 July 2012|url=https://publicacta.org.nz/|title=The Wellington Declaration |access-date=7 July 2012 |website=Publicacta.org.nz |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120718223527/http://acta.net.nz/the-wellington-declaration }} on 10 April 2010, a petition was signed by over 7,000 people worldwide in the first three days.

File:Anti-ACTA rally, Warsaw, 2012.jpg, January 2012]]

File:Anti-ACTA Demonstration in Aalborg, Denmark, 2012-02-25 -ubt-141.JPG, February 2012]]

After Poland's announcement on 19 January 2012 that it would sign the treaty on 26 January, a number of Polish government websites were shut down by denial of service attacks that started on 21 January. Websites included those of the Chancellery of the Prime Minister, Ministry of Culture and National Heritage, the President, and the Sejm.{{cite news |title=Poland: Netizens Protest Government's Plan to Sign ACTA Next Week |url=http://globalvoicesonline.org/2012/01/22/poland-netizens-protest-governments-plan-to-sign-acta-next-week/ |newspaper=Global Voices Online |date=22 January 2012 |access-date=22 January 2012 |archive-date=23 January 2012 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120123025946/http://globalvoicesonline.org/2012/01/22/poland-netizens-protest-governments-plan-to-sign-acta-next-week/ |url-status=live }} On 23 January the website of the Prime Minister of Poland was hacked. The content of the page was replaced by a video where the internet users were called to oppose the threats to privacy that were attributed to ACTA.{{cite web|title="Baśka z klatki B" na stronie premiera. Ostrzeżenie od hakerów.|trans-title="Barbara of the B block" on the Prime Minister's website. A warning from the hackers.|url=http://polska.newsweek.pl/-baska-z-klatki-b--na-stronie-premiera---stan-wojenny-w-internecie-,87544,1,1.html|work=Newsweek Polska|access-date=13 June 2013|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120125231952/http://polska.newsweek.pl/-baska-z-klatki-b--na-stronie-premiera---stan-wojenny-w-internecie-,87544,1,1.html|archive-date=25 January 2012|url-status=dead}} Over a thousand people protested in front of the European Parliament office in Warsaw on 24 January.{{cite news |title=Demonstracja przeciwko ACTA w Warszawie |trans-title=Demonstration against ACTA in Warsaw |url=http://www.polskatimes.pl/artykul/497490,demonstracja-przeciwko-acta-w-warszawie-je-c-korporacje,id,t.html |archive-url=https://archive.today/20130416093446/http://www.polskatimes.pl/artykul/497490,demonstracja-przeciwko-acta-w-warszawie-je-c-korporacje,id,t.html |url-status=dead |archive-date=16 April 2013 |newspaper=Polska Times |language=pl |date=24 January 2012 |access-date=24 January 2012 }} On 25 January, at least 15,000 demonstrated in Kraków, 5,000 in Wrocław, with considerable protests in cities across the country.{{cite web |url=http://www.thespec.com/news/world/article/660754--protesters-rally-across-poland-to-express-anger-at-international-copyright-treaty |title=Protesters rally across Poland to express anger at international copyright treaty |work=The Hamilton Spectator |date=25 January 2012 |access-date=29 January 2012 |archive-date=28 January 2012 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120128085636/http://www.thespec.com/news/world/article/660754--protesters-rally-across-poland-to-express-anger-at-international-copyright-treaty |url-status=live }} Polish social sites Demotywatory.pl, JoeMonster.org, Kwejk.pl, AntyWeb.pl and Wykop.pl announced that they were considering a blackout similar to the SOPA-inspired 2012 Wikipedia blackout to protest Poland's plan to sign the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement.{{cite news|title=Polskie serwisy niedostępne przez 24h |trans-title=Polish sites unavailable for 24 hours |url=http://www.rp.pl/artykul/796028,796607-Polskie-serwisy-niedostepne-przez-24h.html |work=Rzeczpospolita |date=22 January 2012 |access-date=22 January 2012 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120324102503/http://www.rp.pl/artykul/796028%2C796607-Polskie-serwisy-niedostepne-przez-24h.html |archive-date=24 March 2012 }}

A poll conducted on 27 January by Millward Brown SMG/KRC indicated that 64% of Poles opposed the agreement's signing, 60% believed the treaty would fail to achieve its primary objective, and 50% thought that it would curtail essential freedoms.{{cite news |title=Warsaw demonstrators protest ACTA |url=http://www.thenews.pl/1/9/Artykul/84576,Warsaw-demonstrators-protest-ACTA |work=Polskie Radio |date=27 January 2011 |access-date=27 January 2012 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120130053809/http://www.thenews.pl/1/9/Artykul/84576,Warsaw-demonstrators-protest-ACTA |archive-date=30 January 2012 |url-status=live }} On 27 January, protesters across the country numbered in the tens of thousands.{{cite news|title=Poland: Thousands protest signing of anti-piracy agreement |date=27 January 2012 |work=Channel 6 News Online |url=http://channel6newsonline.com/2012/01/poland-thousands-protest-signing-of-anti-piracy-agreement/ |access-date=28 January 2012 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120131073813/http://channel6newsonline.com/2012/01/poland-thousands-protest-signing-of-anti-piracy-agreement/ |archive-date=31 January 2012 |url-status=dead }} Following the demonstrations, Interia.pl and RMF FM facilitated 1.8 million emails to members of parliament related to ACTA, with 97% of those participating being opposed to the treaty.{{cite news |title=1,8 miliona maili w sprawie ACTA! |trans-title=1.8 million e-mails on ACTA! |date=29 January 2012 |url=http://fakty.interia.pl/raport/internauci-przeciwko-acta/news/milion-glosow-w-sprawie-acta,1752654,7906 |work=Interia.pl |access-date=30 January 2012 |language=pl |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120131141757/http://fakty.interia.pl/raport/internauci-przeciwko-acta/news/milion-glosow-w-sprawie-acta,1752654,7906 |archive-date=31 January 2012 |url-status=dead }}

File:Stop ACTA Octupus.jpg]]

File:Kader Arif - Strauss-Kahn meeting in Toulouse for the 2007 French presidential election 0091 2007-04-13.jpg, the European parliament's rapporteur for ACTA, who resigned in protest of ACTA on 26 January 2012]]

{{anchor|Rapporteur's resignation}}

Kader Arif, European parliament's rapporteur for ACTA, resigned from his position on 26 January 2012 denouncing the treaty "in the strongest possible manner" for having "no inclusion of civil society organizations, a lack of transparency from the start of the negotiations, repeated postponing of the signature of the text without an explanation being ever given, [and] exclusion of the EU Parliament's demands that were expressed on several occasions in [the] assembly", concluding with his intent to "send a strong signal and alert the public opinion about this unacceptable situation" and refusal to "take part in this masquerade."

On 23 January the Inspector General for Personal Data Protection of Poland, Wojciech Wiewiórowski, recommended not signing ACTA, considering it to be a threat to the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution of Poland.{{cite web|url=http://www.tvn24.pl/-1,1732379,0,1,giodo-acta-niebezpieczne-dla-konstytucyjnych-praw-i-wolnosci,wiadomosc.html|title=GIODO: ACTA niebezpieczne dla konstytucyjnych praw i wolności|trans-title=GIODO: ACTA a threat to constitutional rights and freedoms|date=23 January 2012|work=tvn24.pl after PAP|access-date=13 June 2013|archive-date=26 January 2012|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120126152724/http://www.tvn24.pl/-1,1732379,0,1,giodo-acta-niebezpieczne-dla-konstytucyjnych-praw-i-wolnosci,wiadomosc.html|url-status=dead}}

On 26 January 2012 a group of Polish politicians expressed disapproval of the treaty by holding up Guy Fawkes masks during parliamentary proceedings.{{cite news|author=Vanessa Gera |title=Poland signs copyright treaty that drew protests |date=26 January 2012 |publisher=Yahoo! News |url=http://sg.news.yahoo.com/poland-signs-copyright-treaty-drew-protests-102302237.html |agency=Associated Press |access-date=27 January 2012 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120127040038/http://sg.news.yahoo.com/poland-signs-copyright-treaty-drew-protests-102302237.html |archive-date=27 January 2012 |url-status=live }} Images of this event quickly spread on the Internet.{{cite news|author=Parmy Olson |title=Amid ACTA Outcy, Politicians Don Anonymous Guy Fawkes Masks |date=27 January 2011 |url=https://www.forbes.com/sites/parmyolson/2012/01/27/amid-acta-outcy-politicians-don-anonymous-guy-fawkes-masks/ |work=Forbes |access-date=30 January 2012 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120128180652/http://www.forbes.com/sites/parmyolson/2012/01/27/amid-acta-outcy-politicians-don-anonymous-guy-fawkes-masks/ |archive-date=28 January 2012 |url-status=live }} Mike Masnick of Techdirt resultantly 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.{{cite news |author=Mike Masnick |title=Polish politicians don Guy Fawkes / Anonymous masks to protest ACTA signing |date=26 January 2012 |url=http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120126/12313917555/polish-politicians-don-guy-fawkesanonymous-masks-to-protest-acta-signing.shtml |work=Techdirt |access-date=27 January 2012 |archive-date=19 September 2012 |archive-url=https://archive.today/20120919124445/http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120126/12313917555/polish-politicians-don-guy-fawkesanonymous-masks-to-protest-acta-signing.shtml |url-status=live }}{{cite magazine |author=Nick Carbone |title=How Time Warner Profits from the 'Anonymous' Hackers |date=29 August 2011 |url=https://newsfeed.time.com/2011/08/29/how-time-warner-profits-from-the-anonymous-hackers/ |magazine=Time |access-date=27 January 2012 |archive-date=24 December 2017 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20171224201558/http://newsfeed.time.com/2011/08/29/how-time-warner-profits-from-the-anonymous-hackers/ |url-status=live }} Polish opposition right-wing party Law and Justice subsequently called for a referendum on ACTA.{{cite news |author=Charles Arthur |url=https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2012/jan/27/acta-protests-eu-states-sign-treaty |title=Acta protests break out as EU states sign up to treaty |work=The Guardian |access-date=1 February 2012 |date=27 January 2012 |archive-date=15 February 2014 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140215073739/http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2012/jan/27/acta-protests-eu-states-sign-treaty |url-status=live }}

Later, the Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk stated that ratification was "suspended." On 17 February 2012, Prime Minister Donald Tusk said Poland was "abandoning plans for ratification" and now views his earlier support for ACTA "as a mistake." Prime Minister Tusk has also sent a letter to his fellow leaders in the EU urging them "to reject ACTA."{{cite news|author=Alice Trudelle |title=Polish government asks European Parliament not to sign ACTA |url=http://www.wbj.pl/article-58076-polish-government-asks-european-parliament-not-to-sign-acta.html |date=17 February 2012 |work=Warsaw Business Journal |access-date=22 February 2012 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120224174550/http://www.wbj.pl/article-58076-polish-government-asks-european-parliament-not-to-sign-acta.html |archive-date=24 February 2012 }}

Poland has also been a site of major hactivism related to anti-ACTA protests, with a number of Polish governmental websites being hacked to display criticism of ACTA.{{cite book|author1=Dariusz Jemielniak|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=yLDMDwAAQBAJ|title=Collaborative Society|author2=Aleksandra Przegalinska|date=18 February 2020|publisher=MIT Press|isbn=978-0-262-35645-9|access-date=23 November 2020|archive-date=23 November 2020|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201123045652/https://books.google.com/books?id=yLDMDwAAQBAJ|url-status=live}}{{Rp|91–92}}

Helena Drnovšek-Zorko, Slovenian ambassador to Japan, issued a statement on 31 January 2012 expressing deep remorse for having signed the agreement. "I signed ACTA out of civic carelessness, because I did not pay enough attention. Quite simply, I did not clearly connect the agreement I had been instructed to sign with the agreement that, according to my own civic conviction, limits and withholds the freedom of engagement on the largest and most significant network in human history, and thus limits particularly the future of our children," she said.{{cite web|url=http://metinalista.si/why-i-signed-acta/ |title=Why I signed ACTA |access-date=4 February 2012 |author=Helena Drnovšek-Zorko |date=31 January 2012 |work=Metina lista |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120203131842/http://metinalista.si/why-i-signed-acta/ |archive-date=3 February 2012 |url-status=live }}

Slovenian members of hacktivist group Anonymous announced opposition against the treaty's signing and posted video threats on various websites against government officials and Nova Ljubljanska banka, accusing the latter of corruption.{{cite web |url=http://24ur.com/novice/slovenija/na-nasprotnih-bregovih-acte.html |title=Video: Anonymous: NLB bo okusila našo jezo! |trans-title=NLB will taste our wrath! |work=24ur.com |access-date=10 February 2012 |archive-date=6 February 2012 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120206010030/http://24ur.com/novice/slovenija/na-nasprotnih-bregovih-acte.html |url-status=live }}

According to police estimates, 3000 Slovenians subsequently protested at Congress Square in Ljubljana and around 300 in Maribor on 4 February 2012.{{cite news |url=http://www.sta.si/vest.php?s=a&id=1722899 |title=Protesters Decry ACTA, Want to Stop Ratification |date=2 April 2012 |publisher=Slovenian Press Agency |access-date=5 February 2012 }}{{cite web |language=sl |url=http://www.zurnal24.si/anonymous-ze-v-akciji-clanek-147587 |title=3.000 grl proti Acti in napad na NLB |trans-title=3000 protest against NLB and ACTA |work=Zurnal24.si |access-date=10 February 2012 |archive-date=6 February 2012 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120206221806/http://www.zurnal24.si/anonymous-ze-v-akciji-clanek-147587 |url-status=live }} The Nova Ljubljanska banka was also taken offline for about one hour by a cyber attack.

File:Carl Schlyter, Christian Engström and Mikael Gustafsson at ACTA protest, Stockholm 4 February 2012.jpg, Christian Engström and Mikael Gustafsson, three Swedish Members of the European Parliament opposing ACTA, on an anti-ACTA demonstration in Stockholm, 4 February 2012]]

Almost 12,000 people signed up for the Facebook event to demonstrate against ACTA.{{cite web |url=https://www.facebook.com/events/332489143440319/ |title=Vakna Sverige! Stå upp för er frihet! |trans-title=Wake up Sweden! Stand up for your freedom! |via=Facebook |access-date=16 February 2012 |archive-date=11 February 2012 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120211021809/https://www.facebook.com/events/332489143440319/ |url-status=live }}{{Primary source inline|date=September 2020}} Several thousand Swedes protested in cities across Sweden on 4 February 2012.{{cite news |author=Jennie Danielsson and Sofia Eriksson |title=Demonstrationer mot antipiratavtal |trans-title=Demonstrations against anti-piracy agreement |date=4 February 2012 |url=https://www.dn.se/nyheter/sverige/demonstrationer-mot-antipiratavtal/ |work=Dagens Nyheter |access-date=16 February 2012 |archive-date=3 April 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210403090119/https://www.dn.se/nyheter/sverige/demonstrationer-mot-antipiratavtal/ |url-status=live }}{{cite news |author=Peter Vinthagen Simpson |title=Swedes out in force to protest anti-piracy law |date=4 February 2012 |url=http://www.thelocal.se/38920/20120204/ |work=The Local |access-date=16 February 2012 |archive-date=3 April 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210403090053/https://www.thelocal.se/20120204/38920/ |url-status=live }} A smaller protest with a few hundred participants was also arranged in central Stockholm, Helsingborg and Jönköping{{cite news |title=Protester mot ACTA-avtal |trans-title=Protests against the ACTA agreement |date=11 February 2012 |url=http://sverigesradio.se/sida/artikel.aspx?programid=91&artikel=4960225 |work=Sveriges Radio |access-date=16 February 2012 |archive-date=22 February 2015 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150222230601/http://sverigesradio.se/sida/artikel.aspx?programid=91&artikel=4960225 |url-status=live }} on 11 February 2012 to coincide with the global protests that day.{{cite news |title=Anti-ACTA Day of Action February 11 Protest |date=8 February 2012 |url=http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/295330/20120208/anti-acta-protest-february-when-where-details.htm |work=International Business Times |access-date=16 February 2012 |archive-date=13 February 2012 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120213012150/http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/295330/20120208/anti-acta-protest-february-when-where-details.htm |url-status=live }} Another protest subsequently took place in Gothenburg on 25 February 2012{{cite web |url=https://www.facebook.com/events/243895365687129/ |title=Göteborgsprotest mot ACTA |trans-title=Gothenburg protest against ACTA |via=Facebook |access-date=16 February 2012 |archive-date=11 February 2012 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120211021943/https://www.facebook.com/events/243895365687129/ |url-status=live }}{{Primary source inline|date=September 2020}} with over 1,000 participants showing up for the demonstration at Götaplatsen.{{cite news|title=Demonstration mot ACTA i Göteborg |trans-title=Demonstration against ACTA in Gothenburg |date=25 February 2012 |url=http://svt.se/2.34007/1.2721450/demonstration_mot_acta_i_goteborg |archive-url=https://archive.today/20120719132015/http://svt.se/2.34007/1.2721450/demonstration_mot_acta_i_goteborg |url-status=dead |archive-date=19 July 2012 |publisher=Sveriges Television |access-date=27 February 2012 }} Amongst other speakers was the Canadian-born Laura Creighton, vice-president of the Foundation for a Free Information Infrastructure (2008–present), residing in Gothenburg since around 2002.{{cite web |url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gTJ7nWLCZlI |title=ACTA demonstration Gothenburg (25/2 2012) speech Laura Creighton |via=YouTube |access-date=28 February 2012 |archive-date=26 February 2012 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120226202145/http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gTJ7nWLCZlI&gl=US&hl=en |url-status=live }}

The Swedish Pirate Party and its Member of the European Parliaments (MEPs) Christian Engström and Amelia Andersdotter and as its party leader Anna Troberg have also been involved in arranging the Swedish protests.,{{cite news |title=Demonstrationer mot Acta-avtalet |trans-title=Demonstrations against ACTA agreement |date=4 February 2012 |url=http://www.aftonbladet.se/nyheter/article14317626.ab |language=sv |work=Aftonbladet |access-date=2 July 2012 |archive-date=13 April 2012 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120413193248/http://www.aftonbladet.se/nyheter/article14317626.ab |url-status=live }} including the later demonstrations on 9 June 2012 in Stockholm and Gothenburg, which were held at the same time as demonstrations in other parts of the world.{{cite news |title=Idag demonstrerar Europa mot ACTA och för nätfrihet |trans-title=Today Europe demonstrates against ACTA and for Internet freedom |date=9 June 2012 |url=http://www.mynewsdesk.com/se/pressroom/piratpartiet/pressrelease/view/i-dag-demonstrerar-europa-mot-acta-och-foer-naetfrihet-770193 |work=mynewsdesk.com |access-date=2 July 2012 |archive-date=14 June 2012 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120614204708/http://www.mynewsdesk.com/se/pressroom/piratpartiet/pressrelease/view/i-dag-demonstrerar-europa-mot-acta-och-foer-naetfrihet-770193 |url-status=live }}{{cite news |title=Nya demonstrationer mot Acta-avtalet |trans-title=New demonstrations against ACTA |date=9 June 2012 |url=http://www.svt.se/2.22584/1.2707045/nya_demonstrationer_mot_acta-avtalet |publisher=Sveriges Television |access-date=2 July 2012 |archive-date=18 April 2012 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120418233723/http://svt.se/2.22584/1.2707045/nya_demonstrationer_mot_acta-avtalet |url-status=live }} The Green Party of Sweden and their MEP Carl Schlyter have also worked against ACTA,{{cite news |title=Riksdagen måste säga nej till Acta-avtalet |date=3 February 2012 |url=http://www.aftonbladet.se/debatt/debattamnen/internet/article14313973.ab |work=Aftonbladet |access-date=2 July 2012 |archive-date=29 October 2012 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20121029041029/http://www.aftonbladet.se/debatt/debattamnen/internet/article14313973.ab |url-status=live }} as well as the Left Party and their MEP Mikael Gustafsson.{{cite web|url=http://www.vansterpartiet.eu/showPage.php?ID=2548 |archive-url=https://archive.today/20130213081903/http://www.vansterpartiet.eu/showPage.php?ID=2548 |url-status=dead |archive-date=13 February 2013 |title=Snart ligger ACTA på sophögen! |trans-title=Soon ACTA will be on the garbage heap! |publisher=Left Party |date=11 May 2012 |access-date=2 July 2012 }}

File:Anti ACTA demonstration in Tartu.JPG, Estonia. 11 February 2012]]

On 11 February 2012, protests were held against ACTA in more than 200 European cities.{{cite web|url=https://www.accessnow.org/policy-activism/press-blog/acta-protest-feb-11 |title=The ACTA Action Center |work=Access Now |date=11 February 2012 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120210095456/https://www.accessnow.org/policy-activism/press-blog/acta-protest-feb-11 |archive-date=10 February 2012 }} On 21 February 2012, a news report noted that "many countries in Europe that have signed the treaty have set aside ratification in response to public outcry, effectively hampering the ratification and implementation of the treaty." Protests in Germany attracted over 10,000 participants,{{cite web |url=https://www.stern.de/news2/aktuell/zehntausende-demonstrieren-in-europa-gegen-acta-1785384.html |title=Zehntausende demonstrieren in Europa gegen ACTA |trans-title=10,000 demonstrate in Europe against ACTA |date=11 February 2012 |access-date=7 June 2012 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120316113250/http://www.stern.de/news2/aktuell/zehntausende-demonstrieren-in-europa-gegen-acta-1785384.html |archive-date=16 March 2012 |url-status=dead }} while up to 8,000 Bulgarians protested in Sofia.{{cite news|author=Erik Kirschbaum and Irina Ivanova |title=Protests erupt across Europe against ACTA |date=13 February 2012 |url=http://www.stuff.co.nz/technology/digital-living/6407227/Protests-erupt-across-Europe-against-ACTA |work=Stuff (company) |access-date=16 February 2012 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120214065549/http://www.stuff.co.nz/technology/digital-living/6407227/Protests-erupt-across-Europe-against-ACTA |archive-date=14 February 2012 |url-status=live }}{{cite news |title=Bulgaria Says 'ACTA La Vista, Baby!' |date=11 February 2012 |url=http://novinite.com/view_news.php?id=136562 |publisher=Novinite.com (Sofia News Agency) |access-date=18 February 2012 |archive-date=3 April 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210403090052/https://www.novinite.com/view_news.php?id=136562 |url-status=live }}

On 18 February 2012, a petition at jestemprzeciwacta.pl seeking a referendum in Poland had reached more than 415,300 signatures.{{cite news |title=Będzie referendum ws. ACTA? Już 200 tys. podpisów |trans-title=Will there be a referendum on ACTA? There are already 200,000 signatures |date=27 January 2012 |work=Onet.pl |url=http://biznes.onet.pl/bedzie-referendum-ws-acta-juz-200-tys-podpisow,18515,5010615,1,news-detal |language=pl |access-date=30 January 2012 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120204092339/http://biznes.onet.pl/bedzie-referendum-ws-acta-juz-200-tys-podpisow,18515,5010615,1,news-detal |archive-date=4 February 2012 |url-status=dead }}{{cite web |url=http://www.jestemprzeciwacta.pl/ |title=Nie dla ACTA |trans-title=No to ACTA |access-date=30 January 2012 |language=pl |archive-date=30 January 2012 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120130002249/http://www.jestemprzeciwacta.pl/ |url-status=live }} A similar worldwide petition at Avaaz collected over 2.5 million signatures since 25 January.{{cite news|author=Alastair Stevenson |title=ACTA: One Million Sign Protest Petition against Trade Agreement |date=30 January 2012 |url=http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/articles/289767/20120130/acta-protest-sign-poland-uk-censorship-petition.htm |work=International Business Times |access-date=30 January 2012 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120202060512/http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/articles/289767/20120130/acta-protest-sign-poland-uk-censorship-petition.htm |archive-date=2 February 2012 |url-status=live }} A petition directed at United Kingdom citizens, hosted by the UK Government's Directgov website, has reached over 14,500 signatures as of 18 February.{{cite web |url=http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/20685/ |title=Say No to ACTA |access-date=7 February 2012 |publisher=Directgov |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120210151756/http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/20685 |archive-date=10 February 2012 |url-status=dead }} A petition directed at Estonian citizens has reached over 7,200 signatures as of 18 February.{{cite web |url=http://petitsioon.ee/ei-acta-le |title=EI ACTA-le |trans-title=No to ACTA |access-date=13 February 2012 |publisher=Petitsioon.ee |archive-date=13 February 2012 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120213014442/http://petitsioon.ee/ei-acta-le/ |url-status=live }}

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 reached the threshold of 25,000 signatures within a month's time. This petition ended 9 June with 47,517 total signatures logged.{{cite web|title=End ACTA and Protect our right to privacy on the Internet |url=https://wwws.whitehouse.gov/petitions#!/petition/end-acta-and-protect-our-right-privacy-internet/MwfSVNBK |date=21 January 2012 |publisher=White House petition |access-date=9 June 2012 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20111124052154/https://wwws.whitehouse.gov/Petitions |archive-date=24 November 2011 }} Afterwards, in June 2012, Deputy US Trade Representative, Ambassador Miriam Sapiro, on behalf of the White House Staff, presented the official White House position in response to the petition. Another petition, "Please Submit ACTA to the Senate for Ratification as Required by the Constitution for Trade Agreements," was created 22 January 2012 but did not reach the threshold of 25,000 signatures within a month's time. With about 12,850 signatures logged at month's end, this petition was "expired" as of 21 February.{{cite web|title=Please Submit ACTA to the Senate for Ratification as Required by the Constitution for Trade Agreements |url=https://wwws.whitehouse.gov/petitions#!/petition/please-submit-acta-senate-ratification-required-constitution-trade-agreements/VgZJGZMt |date=22 January 2012 |publisher=White House petition |access-date=21 February 2012 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20111124052154/https://wwws.whitehouse.gov/Petitions |archive-date=24 November 2011 }}

{{col-begin}}

{{col-2}}

• Copyright
• Copyright infringement
• Counterfeit
• Digital rights
• Freedom of information
• Generic drugs
• Right to science and culture
• Secondary liability
• Trans-Pacific Partnership

• Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS), WTO
• Caribbean Basin Initiative (CBI)
• Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA)
• Counterfeiting of medical products convention, also concluded in 2011
• Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market (European Union)
• Enforcement Directive (IPRED), EU
• Protect IP Act (PIPA), US, shelved
• Protection of Broadcasts and Broadcasting Organizations Treaty, WIPO, proposed
• Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA), US, shelved
• Telecoms Package (European Union)
• Transatlantic Free Trade Area
• Trans-Pacific Strategic Economic Partnership

{{col-2}}

• Directorate-General for Information Society and Media (European Commission)
• European Round Table of Industrialists
• World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO)
• World Summit on the Information Society

• Protests against SOPA and PIPA
• Week of action against CISPA

{{col-end}}

{{Reflist|colwidth=30em}}

• {{cite journal |last1=Matthews |first1=D. |last2=Žikovská |first2=P. |year=2013 |title=The Rise and Fall of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA): Lessons for the European Union |journal=International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law |volume=44 |issue=6 |pages=626–655 |doi=10.1007/s40319-013-0081-y |s2cid=154838383 }}

{{Sister project links|auto=1}}

• Japan: [http://www.mofa.go.jp/policy/economy/i_property/acta.html Depositary site] Ministry of Foreign Affairs
• Australia: [http://www.dfat.gov.au/trade/acta/ Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120207112913/http://www.dfat.gov.au/trade/acta/ |date=7 February 2012 }} (DFAT)
• Canada: [http://www.international.gc.ca/trade-agreements-accords-commerciaux/fo/intellect_property.aspx Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110624084616/http://www.international.gc.ca/trade-agreements-accords-commerciaux/fo/intellect_property.aspx |date=24 June 2011 }}
• European Union: [http://ec.europa.eu/trade/creating-opportunities/trade-topics/intellectual-property/anti-counterfeiting/ European Commission] (EC)
• Japan: [http://www.meti.go.jp/english/policy/economy/chizai/acta.html Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120129000201/http://www.meti.go.jp/english/policy/economy/chizai/acta.html |date=29 January 2012 }} (METI)
• New Zealand: [http://www.med.govt.nz/templates/ContentTopicSummary____34357.aspx Ministry of Economic Development] (MED) and [https://web.archive.org/web/20100221153827/http://www.mfat.govt.nz/Trade-and-Economic-Relations/Trade-Agreements/Anti-Counterfeiting/0-ACTA.php Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade] (MFAT)
• United States: [http://www.ustr.gov/acta United States Trade Representative] (USTR)

• [https://web.archive.org/web/20120507132516/http://www.international.gc.ca/trade-agreements-accords-commerciaux/assets/pdfs/acta-crc_apr15-2011_eng.pdf English version, finalized], released on 15 November 2010, published on 15 April 2011
• [http://register.consilium.europa.eu/servlet/driver?page=Result&lang=EN&typ=Advanced&cmsid=639&ff_COTE_DOCUMENT=12196/11&ff_COTE_DOSSIER_INST=&ff_TITRE=&ff_FT_TEXT=&ff_SOUS_COTE_MATIERE=&dd_DATE_DOCUMENT=&document_date_single_comparator=&document_date_single_date=&document_date_from_date=&document_date_to_date=&dd_DATE_REUNION=&meeting_date_single_comparator=&meeting_date_single_date=&meeting_date_from_date=&meeting_date_to_date=&fc=ALLLANG&srm=25&md=100&ssf=DATE_DOCUMENT+DESC Treaty in EU Languages], Official languages English, French and Spanish, as well as translations into all languages of the European Union, except Croatian.

• {{cite web|url= http://blog.die-linke.de/digitalelinke/wp-content/uploads/ACTA-6437-10.pdf |title=Draft of 18 January 2010 }}, leaked on 1 March 2010
• {{cite web|url= http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2010/april/tradoc_146029.pdf |title=Draft of April 2010 }}, released on 21 April 2010
• {{cite web|url= http://www.laquadrature.net/files/ACTA_consolidatedtext_EUrestricted130710.pdf |title=Text of 1 July 2010 }}, leaked on 13 July 2010
• {{cite web |url= http://keionline.org/sites/default/files/acta_aug25_dc.pdf |title= Text of 25 August 2010 |url-status= dead |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20111007160100/http://keionline.org/sites/default/files/acta_aug25_dc.pdf |archive-date= 7 October 2011 |df= dmy-all }}, leaked on 5 September 2010

• [https://web.archive.org/web/20120207225620/http://www.michaelgeist.ca/tags/anti-counterfeiting+trade+agreement ACTA tracking articles] by Michael Geist
• [http://acta.ffii.org ACTA Blog of FFII]
• [https://www.eff.org/issues/acta EFF's Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement page]
• [https://web.archive.org/web/20120313030005/http://gamepolitics.com/category/topics/acta GamePolitics’ ACTA news aggregation page ]
• [http://www.keionline.org/acta KEI's Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement page]
• [http://www.laquadrature.net/en/ACTA La Quadrature du Net's Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement page]
• [http://wiki.openrightsgroup.org/wiki/Anti-Counterfeiting_Trade_Agreement_2011 Open Rights Group's wiki summary of the Treaty]
• [https://web.archive.org/web/20100204021257/http://acta.net.nz/ Site for NZ coalition calling for transparency in ACTA]
• [http://publicacta.org.nz PublicACTA − the open consultation event in NZ on 10 April]
• [https://web.archive.org/web/20120205082047/http://www.publicknowledge.org/issues/acta Public Knowledge Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement page]
• [https://web.archive.org/web/20100709024919/http://slaconnections.typepad.com/public_policy_blog/2010/06/proposed-acta-changes-sent-to-the-ustr-.html Proposed ACTA Changes sent to the USTR.] (Red Line Edit)
• [http://www.stopacta.info/ What is ACTA?]
• [https://web.archive.org/web/20111124052154/https://wwws.whitehouse.gov/Petitions#!/petition/end-acta-and-protect-our-right-privacy-internet/MwfSVNBK White House Petition – To End ACTA And Protect Internet Privacy], created 21 January 2012
• [https://web.archive.org/web/20111124052154/https://wwws.whitehouse.gov/Petitions#!/petition/please-submit-acta-senate-ratification-required-constitution-trade-agreements/VgZJGZMt White House Petition – To Submit ACTA To The (US) Senate For Ratification], created 22 January 2012
• [https://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/02/peter-sunde/ It’s Evolution, Stupid] Peter Sunde (Co-founder, The Pirate Bay) – Wired, 10 February 2012.

• [http://www.euronews.net/2012/02/11/activists-rally-to-give-acta-the-cold-shoulder/ Activists rally to give ACTA the cold shoulder], Euronews
• [https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/on-innovations/acta-protests-gain-steam-in-europe/2012/02/10/gIQAxIGu4Q_gallery.html#photo=1 Photos of the protests in Europe], The Washington Post
• [http://www.iptegrity.com/index.php/acta/742-thousands-protest-in-valentines-week-end-acta-marches/ Valentine's week-end ACTA marches: thousands protest], Iptegrity.com

Category:Intellectual property treaties

Category:Computer law treaties

Category:Trademark legislation

Category:Treaties concluded in 2011

Category:Treaties not entered into force

Category:Counterfeit consumer goods

Category:Anti-counterfeiting treaties

Category:Treaties of Japan