It can be found here Firstly, let's take stock of how this is progressing.

Australia, Canada, Japan, Republic of Korea, Morocco, New Zealand, Singapore, and the United States have signed ACTA The EU as a bloc, Mexico, and Switzerland all want to move to signing ACTA in the future.

Why is there such a controversy about ACTA? A considerable part of this is because we didn't know what was in it. The negotiations were conducted in secret for several years, and some governments refused to honour freedom of information requests. It has started to get the sunshine treatment since a leaked draft of the document emerged last year. Another part was legitimate fear that it would trample all over individual rights. This is the concern and we'll have a look at it in a minute. But first:

Understanding how a treaty differs from a national law ACTA is a treaty. It is signed by multiple governments and does not involve the legislatures of these states (except some states, like the US, who later ratify the treaty). However that isn't the end of the story. If you read through ACTA (look to the top) it should become immediately clear to you from the continous use of this language: A Party may provide... Each Party shall.. That ACTA has no domestic force. So what does it do? In a nutshell, it gives each signatory authority to create laws that satisfy ACTA's requirements. Without getting into the issue of monism and dualism (international legal concepts for how treaties embed themselves into domestic law) it simply means that until signatory states create enforcing legislation, ACTA does nothing. An example would be that, once passed, a US federal act that enforces ACTA is immune from challenges over states rights (though not bill of rights challenges). To be frank this isn't too controversial, there is nothing in ACTA that doesn't satisfy the inter-state commerce clause anyway. So undersand that ACTA isn't really the issue. What people need to be prepared for is how states implement it, which is where scope for abuse is. What are the dangerous parts of the treaty?

First, throw out any past assumptions, youtube videos, or otherwise you've read or watched. The final draft of ACTA is much weaker than previous drafts. We'll go through the bits that could be abused, but understand this: If implemented with respect, ACTA doesn't do much more than standardise across several countries enforcement law that pretty much already exists in some countries (the US clearly had a hand in getting other countries to pass laws similar to its own on infringement). That said, let's take a look: Article 6.1 Each Party shall ensure that enforcement procedures are available under its law so as to permit effective action against any act of infringement of intellectual property rights covered by this Agreement, including expeditious remedies to prevent infringements and remedies which constitute a deterrent to further infringements. These procedures shall be applied in such a manner as to avoid the creation of barriers to legitimate trade and to provide for safeguards against their abuse. This is the core of the agreement. Each signatory will create laws that give effect to the parts of the agreement, which is broadly to give remedies and rights to IP holders that can be applied quickly and effectively. There is scope for abuse in so far as a signatory might be overzealous and pass unfair legislation, but it isn't demanded by the treaty. In implementing the provisions of this Chapter, each Party shall take into account the need for proportionality between the seriousness of the infringement, the interests of third parties, and the applicable measures, remedies and penalties Key point here. The treaty clearly states that it does not, and can not, make countries infringe their own civil liberties and rights in pursuance of the agreement. Again, it is up to the public to make sure their legislators deal with this fairly. Article 8.1 Each Party shall provide that, in civil judicial proceedings concerning the enforcement of intellectual property rights, its judicial authorities have the authority to issue an order against a party to desist from an infringement, and inter alia, an order to that party or, where appropriate, to a third party over whom the relevant judicial authority exercises jurisdiction, to prevent goods that involve the infringement of an intellectual property right from entering into the channels of commerce. This instructs signatories to create a power to give an injunction (order to stop) against infringing practices. This is not new in many states. A company engaged in piracy can already be ordered to stop in many jurisdictions, and I'm reading this part as a harmonization effort; so all signatories have similar standards. Article 9.1 DAMAGES Each Party shall provide that, in civil judicial proceedings concerning the enforcement of intellectual property rights, its judicial authorities have the authority to order the infringer who, knowingly or with reasonable grounds to know, engaged in infringing activity to pay the right holder damages adequate to compensate for the injury the right holder has suffered as a result of the infringement. In determining the amount of damages for infringement of intellectual property rights, a Partys judicial authorities shall have the authority to consider, inter alia, any legitimate measure of value the right holder submits, which may include lost profits, the value of the infringed goods or services measured by the market price, or the suggested retail price

This is a serious worry to sites like megaupload. It means that signatories must create a framework of assessing damage based on lost profit from the infringement. Again, as those of you who have read about RIAA or MPAA lawsuits, you will know that this already happens to a degree; this law will create a framework around which this operates. There is a question of how this will apply to individuals as opposed to companies. I'm wondering if, as damages are assessed on lost profit, the argument that "I wouldn't have bought it anyway" would shield an individual torrenter from having to pay up. Ultimately this issue will be determined on a nation by nation basis, as their judiciary interpret the enabling legislation. Given the mass engagement in piracy by individuals (including legislators and officials), I imagine it will be softened against non-commercial infringers. Article 11 Infringement related provision Without prejudice to its law governing privilege, the protection of confidentiality of information sources, or the processing of personal data, each Party shall provide that, in civil judicial proceedings concerning the enforcement of intellectual property rights, its judicial authorities have the authority, upon a justified request of the right holder, to order the infringer or, in the alternative, the alleged infringer, to provide to the right holder or to the judicial authorities, at least for the purpose of collecting evidence, relevant information as provided for in its applicable laws and regulations that the infringer or alleged infringer possesses or controls. Such information may include information regarding any person involved in any aspect of the infringement or alleged infringement and regarding the means of production or the channels of distribution of the infringing or allegedly infringing goods or services, including the identification of third persons alleged to be involved in the production and distribution of such goods or services and of their channels of distribution. This is probably the first really worrying bit. It means that an ISP may be required to give up information on subscribers if a rights holder is planning a lawsuit. However, let's bear in mind 2 parts of the treaty: Without prejudice to ... the processing of personal data . This means that if existing law protects the privacy of subscribers, or if legislation is passed to do so, this part is inoperative against ISPS. Such information .. [that the] .. infringer possesses or controls. Aha. If an ISP only keeps IP logs for a month, or doesn't do so at all, then the copyright holder is without any recourse. You can't hand over information you don't have. A worry is that this part, along with other laws, could lead to issues. Consider the Orwellianly termed "Stop Child Pornography Online ACT" that congress, now that it's killed SOPA and PIPA, is considering. That bill requires ISPs to log information on their subscribers to stop child pornography, but under enforcing ACTA legislation, could be ordered over to sue copyright infringers. To stop this, congress would have to protect the data collected in the child pornography act so it qualifies for the first bulletpoint above. Article 14 Border measures This was one of the most controversial parts in early drafts. It previously would have meant customs could check your ipod or laptop at a terminal and hand over 'infringement' (torrented music, etc) information to copyright holders. Thankfully this part has been declawed, or at least there is the ** opportunity** to do so. I won't go over the parts that apply to chinese bootleggers shipping container crates full of pirated goods, for the little guy:

1. Each Party shall include in the application of this Section goods of a commercial nature sent in small consignments. 2. A Party may exclude from the application of this Section small quantities of goods of a noncommercial nature contained in travellers personal luggage. Okay. So part 1 applies to sending packages in the mail, and even then internationally. If you send a burned DVD of a game or a movie, it can be intercepted and information allowing a lawsuit passed onto the copyright holders. However, a copyright holder has to provide actionable reasons for doing so. Border agents may use 'initiative' to do so on their own, but to be frank I cannot anticipate any state authorising agents to check all international freight; it would be ridiculously expensive. I see this part applying perhaps to known small-time infringers (e.g. someone operating a pirated delivery service on ebay, or at worst a company that burns large media files to disc to send to low bandwidth customers) Part 2 is where you come in. A concern by some of the signatory states was that they weren't going to rifle through peoples baggage or check their carry-on laptop for downloaded movies. This part allows signatories to do nothing about those issues, and its really a case of watching your national legislature and making sure they don't pass baggage search laws for pirated goods. Section 4 Criminal enforcement I'm going to gloss over this part, because it only applies to infringers who do so on a commercial scale. Yes, that means companies like megaupload can be taken down but, as you are probably aware, this part is already implemented in a number of countries in some form. Again, remember that this treaty is for the most part a harmonisation effort to get various jurisdictions enforcing infringement in the same way. This is a personal opinion of mine, but I think that while individual piracy is fair enough, making money off it isn't. A point of interest is that people who film in cinema halls are directly and specifically targeted by this part. Section 5 Article 27.4 Digital enforcement (uh oh) A Party may provide, in accordance with its laws and regulations, its competent authorities with the authority to order an online service provider to disclose expeditiously to a right holder information sufficient to identify a subscriber whose account was allegedly used for infringement, where that right holder has filed a legally sufficient claim of trademark or copyright or related rights infringement, and where such information is being sought for the purpose of protecting or enforcing those rights. These procedures shall be implemented in a manner that avoids the creation of barriers to legitimate activity, including electronic commerce, and, consistent with that Partys law, preserves fundamental principles such as freedom of expression, fair process, and privacy. So this makes the above general part about infringement crystal clear in a digital environment. Of note is that, again, whilst ISPs may be ordered to hand over information on infringers, there is nothing requiring them to gather information to do so, and there is a specific clause " These procedures shall be implemented in a manner that avoids the creation of barriers to legitimate activity " . Which gives ISPs a fighting argument that any new burdens on logging users would be a barrier to their current conduct. The privacy clause is also a strong piece of ammunition for legislatures that actually give a damn about their citizens.

Each Party shall provide adequate legal protection and effective legal remedies against the circumvention of effective technological measures that are used by authors, performers or producers of phonograms in connection with the exercise of their rights in, and that restrict acts in respect of, their works, performances, and phonograms, which are not authorized by the authors, the performers or the producers of phonograms concerned or permitted by law. Effective technical measures means DRM. Now this means that a company that creates software that specifically aims to disable DRM is liable for a lawsuit and (remember the criminal element) is liable to criminal sanctions if they do so knowingly for profit. There are two points to make here : A great deal of DRM stripping software today is open source of freeware. There is nothing in this treaty that controls the flow of information on the internet, and so long as there is no company or group to take down, there is nothing stopping P2P software exchanging that bluray ripper or what have you. Further, let's look at part 6(b)

(b) the manufacture, importation, or distribution of a device or product, including computer programs, or provision of a service that: (i) is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing an effective technological measure; or (ii) has only a limited commercially significant purpose other than circumventing an effective technological measure. My emphasis. We may as well call that the betamax clause. Which means if there is a legitimate function of the device or software, it will be immune from any actions taken. Again, there is a discussion of what the courts will do here, and how the incorporating laws will treat the issue, but there's nothing to worry about per se from the treaty itself. Chapter IV International Co-operation. Well while it won't affect individuals, this part will no doubt help countries co-ordinate efforts against torrent trackers and similar sites. It means that an operation like taking down Megaupload or thepiratebay (from a few years ago), whilst still requiring going to a court, getting the judge to agree and all the rest of due process, will be much easier to put into operation. It means that countries like the US will no longer have to spend months getting individual states to agree to let LEA raid servers; under ACTA provisions, *once the court in one country has agreed, * enforcement can take place quickly. Summary : How does it affect me? To be blunt, for individuals there is not a great deal of change, at least if you live in the US (or to a lesser extent the UK). I'm not familiar with the law of the other signatories, but if you frequent reddit, expect similar copyright enforcement standards as the US (the Scandinavian countries are going to fucking love this...)

The dangers are in how the bill is implemented, with the following issues for individuals: Will the enabling legislation require ISPs to keep more detailed logs that can be handed over to copyright holders? Will other legislation (like the child pornography act) successfully pass and not protect the data from non-criminal investigation use? Will government ignore ACTA's opt-out on personal luggage and carry-on goods? It would be monstrously stupid if they did Will governments shrink the betamax style permissiveness on technologies that can be used for infringement but have other uses aside?

For regularly legitimate companies there are the following: Am I mainly enabling piracy? Megaupload for example. This isn't to say all digital locker sites are in jeapordy; the fairness requirements in the treaty should, if implemented properly mean that sites that promptly remove infringing content are safe. Am I selling things that primarily enable infringement? This will probably mean an end to modchip sellers for xboxes and the like. Heavy criminal and civil penalties mean it will not be a very smart business to be in Will I get a betamax exemption for borderline cases? This is what requires careful observation of individual legislatures. If they fuck it up, things like DVD authoring software could be in trouble.

For companies that almost wholly pirate or facilitate the piracy of goods knowingly Cat and mouse is going to get a lot harder in signatory states. Coordination requirements mean the hammer gets brought down faster You will likely go to jail if you are profiting from piracy. I'm not going to lose much sleep over this myself. If something is going for free in a torrent, fine. But if someone is making money off it, it's only right that it be the copyright holder that does so.

Your 'right' to torrent. What happens next? This in a way highlights the futility of this agreement for anything other than unlawful profiteering from piracy. Every. Single. Time. Government and copyright holders have tried to clamp down on piracy, it has backfired and led to more robust, harder to combat forms of piracy. You may have read that thepiratebay is switching to magnetlinks. Now, instead of a tiny torrent file, all it takes is an even tinier link to start downloading pirated material. I'm not a tech expert, but even I can imagine, should websites like thepiratebay becomes impossible under ACTA, that a new generation of torrent clients that incorporate something like TOR, and 'host' the magnet links across all computers on the network, could become possible. If that happens, the genie really is out of the bottle; ACTA lets companies sue individuals if ISPs keep the information needed to identify people, but even then they can't sue everyone. There is a victory waiting for media corporations in ACTA's implementation, but it will be a profoundly pyrrhic one.

What do we do about it? Hopefully I've made it somewhat clear that ACTA is really a combination of existing enforcement mechanisms, and agreements to create new mechanisms that MAY be abused when passed into law. PIPA and SOPA could easily resurface as 'ACTA-enabling legislation' for example, but that doesn't mean implementation of ACTA must be so draconian. So long as the online community can be as active as it was last week, ACTA can be implemented in a pretty fair way (for-profit infringers aside). Two big points to dwell on: I have no doubt congress will try to resurrect the nasty bits of SOPA and PIPA, as well as some new RIAA/MPAA sponsored madness, under the guise of ACTA. It must be resisted when it emerges The EU is a potential problem. It was great to hear one of the Commission's VPs condemn SOPA and PIPA, but I won't rule out cognitive dissonance seeing to it that the EU proposes just as bad legislation. This is particularly a problem because most people haven't the faintest fucking clue what the European Parliament does, and it would be all too easy to sneak an overzealous implementation of ACTA through it. That said, the pirate party and some of the other civil libertarian parties will no doubt kick up an appropriate fuss when it comes up. EU citizens should be prepared to react to it. There's the final hope that the ECJ will shit on the Commission's cornflakes (which is one of its hobbies) but it really shouldn't be getting to the point where we must lean on a court to right poor legislation.

Summary ACTA itself is not too bad. It is an agreement to create new laws in each signatory state, and most of the rules are either fairly reasonable, or are wide enough in scope to be handled reasonably. Don't make the treaty itself an issue. It has already been signed by most of its initial target, and the others are going to jump on soon enough. It isn't nasty enough to warrant a fight, and it fundamentally weakens the online user's position to shrilly protest what it a relatively tame enabling treaty. The fight will come when legislatures implement it, and you should be ready to protest stupid, draconian or unfair implementations of the treaty.

Q&A Ok, let me get this straight, if the European Parliament signs this treaty, wouldn't that give them the power to write a EU-wide law as bad as SOPA and PIPA and the "Stop Child Pornography Online ACT", based on the loose language in ACTA? I mean, as you say, the loose language in the act can be interpreted quite rationally, but since its loose language i assume it can be interpreted in the worst way possible as well. And since normal European citizens rarely have anything to do with the creation of EU wide laws, i can easily see this go bad. In theory, yes. Though: It will be the Commission (basically the EU civil service) who will no doubt write the first draft. The commission has been critical of SOPA and PIPA, so I'd like to think they won't try and emulate it. The European Parliament is getting very aggravated about this, and there are plenty of MEPs who will kick up a fuss about it if it gets draconian. This of course needs the public to keep the pressure on, but the European Parliament is much more powerful post lisbon, and is looking to flex its muscles. Failing all that, there's a chance the ECJ will gut any particularly bad parts using doctrines of fairness proportionality and their recent declaration of rights (basically a mirror of the ECHR).

So yes, it could be interpreted in the worst way possible, but the three levels of rationality it has to pass through should hopefully result in something palatable. According to Laquadrature the ACTA committee will have power to change the agreement even after it's been voted on, isn't that a great reason to worry about this? (im not good at formulating sentences so look at http://www.laquadrature.net/en/acta-updated-analysis-of-the-final-version under the headline "ACTA will allow for a durable bypass of democracy") Well it's not a bypass of democracy. There are a thousand and one entities created by treaty between nations that allow for self amendment, it's hardly a new concept. To the point: The amending parties are either democratically elected governments, or organisations empowered by democratically elected governments (the EU). If this was an argument against executives ever exercising decision making power I'd think it consistent but stupid, as it is it's just incoherent: we allow elected executives to make decisions all the time without going to the people for a vote, that's their mandate. Unless the implementing legislation is totally bananas and simply gives a blanket implementation of ACTA as a whole (which is technically impossible and in many countries would be illegal) , any amendment of the treaty would need to be followed by legislation.

For example, consider: The EU passes ACTA in its current form and passes it reasonably.

For whatever reasons, the signatory states decide it would be a good idea to destroy the internet, and pass DNS blocking measures similar to SOPA into the ACTA treaty by amendment.

Even if the treaty is amended like this, domestic law would not allow for DNS blocking. Congress, the japanese Diet, the European Parliament, and all other legislative organs of state would have to pass dns blocking law. I read somewhere that ACTA committee members don't have to be elected officials, can't remember where. Do you think there's any possibility that ACTA won't be signed by the EP if we put pressure on the MEP's, or do we just have to wait and see what happens? No they probably don't, but they are appointed by the participatory governments, who are elected. If Hillary Clinton appoints a civil servant to oversee the US's participation in a global development program in Central Africa, has democracy been undermined? Or do we accept that there is a democratic accountability, channelled through the President's nomination of Clinton and the Senate's confirmation? As for the EP, maybe, maybe not. I do think the Commission and member state governments will really put the screws on the EP to accept the treaty, maybe with reservations. The fact that the EP will get a hand in crafting the domestic law (which as I've outlined is where the real scope for abuse is) should hopefully be enough. To be perfectly honest, I can see the use of this. I think the real aim with ACTA is to get less developed countries to sign it, so fake gucci handbags, rampant corporate piracy and other big non-individual issues can be tackled. Developed nations must of course practice what they preach, hence their signing up for it. What about the parts with pharmaceuticals? I mean many companies make the same medicine, albeit with different brands. Can't that be interpreted as "copying" that medicine?, making cheaper alternatives to overpriced medication-brands illegal. I decided to write this after clicking a link at the top of reddit on ACTA that was uninformed and a bit hysterical. One part had a little rant about how ACTA means people will die because they can't access medicine. Here's the thing: ACTA doesn't create, diminish or alter what constitutes infringement. It solely deals with how to deal with it. If you have a problem with medicines being patentable, that's fair enough. But it's separate from how, once you've decided if it is or isn't infringement, how to prevent it. Most nations believe patents on medicine is sensible as it encourages research. There are arguments against this but that isn't the point. So long as countries believe that medicines can be granted patents, there is an obligation to police any infringement, especially commercial infringement, such as from unauthorised generic manufacturers.

Seriously, anyone upset at ACTA because of medicines is barking up the wrong tree. Raise the issue of patents on medicine rather than trying to undermine the general principle of ownership of creativity. You did a great work at resuming what ACTA does. I will also point out that quite a lot of measures present in ACTA were already present in the TRIPS. However, I have to disagree with you on one thing: it is way easier to make a country reject ACTA than having to fight every. single. law. that they will pass after. ACTA will give those laws legitimity where they should have none. ACTA in itself, is not new, however, a lot of public protection measures are opt-in, while most repressive practices are bundled inside, and evaluating the danger posed by ACTA by saying the text in itself is not that bad, but the variations that can appear in local legislation can be dangerous is plainly wrong. The negociators rephrased it like this, making it more wavy that it previously was, in order to have this to pass, but I have no doubts about what will come of it. I, and I imagine many sensible legislators and decision makers, think that ACTA is necessary in so far as it stops commercial piracy and counterfeiting. An agreement to tackle that is always going to potentially infringe on civil liberties and personal infringement, so I think agreeing to ACTA in principle (and, as you put it, wavy terms) and then making sure the legislation that results is safe is a good approach. It's not as if otherwise legislatures couldn't try sneaking nonsense into copyright law anyway. Edit: You're right on TRIPS, but do you have a problem with that too? Edit2: Also, I may have come off a bit harsh. I completely respect the idea that getting rid of ACTA now may be a better way to proceed; I disagree, but that's a debate we can have. My aim when writing this for reddit was so people are a bit more clued up. It's not going to persuade any legislators who have a clue if a bunch of emails flood in saying 'drop SOPA 2.0'. Because it isn't. Edit: You're right on TRIPS, but do you have a problem with that too? Nope, I just wanted to mention it, as ACTA is its successor. I, and I imagine many sensible legislators and decision makers, think that ACTA is necessary in so far as it stops commercial piracy and counterfeiting. But most of those dispositions against commercial piracy already exist in any legislation, and the main actor in that activity is China, who didnt sign the agreement, nor participated in the negociations. If they added the term physical, or at least commercial everywhere, I would almost fully agree with the text, but I would still have concerns about the patents over medication, that are needed right now in developping countries, counterfeit generics that are produced for little money in, say, China, then are shipped to Africa or whatever in order to save people.

This, if ACTA-friendly legislation is passed in a country where those goods transit, will not be possible anymore, and thats why NGOs are against it. Right now, I can not agree with it, because it is way too wavy. The article 9 about damages, I cannot agree with, because the proposed way of calculating damages is completly retarded. Part 3 of article 27 is also dangerous, because while it contains an attempt to protect users rights, it also mentions cooperation in the business community, and that is very nasty. Part 5 & 6 are also some of the dumbest things Ive ever read. As I said in another post, I think the whole issue over generics is misplaced. That's a debate of whether medicines should be considered patentable. You answer yes or no to that, and if you answer yes, a state has an obligation to police it. While I agree that a lot of ACTA is a bit superflous, I think the long term aim is to have LEDCs sign up to it, to stop counterfeiting in countries like China. Of course western countries have to practice what they preach, hence the scramble to get it done before the next WTO round. Good work. Very enlightening. European MEP Christian Engstrm has warned about proportionality before. Some instances in the EU bureacracy seem to think that a fine of 1 per downloaded song is proportional, which becomes very tricky when mp3 players can hold hundreds of thousands of songs. There's also a lot of criticism of the vague language of the treaty. Seeing how the people handling the treaty in the EU have been caught with outright lies (Engstrm mentions this in his blog post above, for example), I wouldn't trust the EU to place themselves in the mild end of the scale of what the treaty's vague language suggests. Thanks for this. I'll read them and get back to you. No doubt there is grand scope for abuse. A good point to make, exemplified by Engstrom, is that post-lisbon the European Parliament has a hugely increased role in dealing with the creation of legislation. Let's hope the democratic influence pays dividends. minor correction here... "shall" DOES create an obligation. Did I say it didn't sorry? Obviously a treaty creates international obligations, but apart from a very small number of them (the treaties of the EU are the only ones I can think of at this moment, and they're really distinct from International law in general) none create obligations in domestic law. I think this is hair-spitting, really. If a member ratifies a treaty then they have, effectively, make it federal law. I know a treaty that is constitutional (Reid v. Covert) trumps a contrary state law (Missouri v. Holland), and I remember a treaty trumps previous federal law... so effectively, a treaty does create obligations in domestic law. At least in the US, so long as it's Constitutional.

Yes but read the treaty. The language is not applicable in domestic law. A party 'shall' or a party 'may' simply means the signatory is obligated to create compliant legislation. You cannot give legal effect to an order to do something by applying that something. Yes, but if it is signed and ratified, it is self-executing, and the House doesn't touch it. The only way it can't be self-executing is if it is unconstitutional. Again, you're splitting hairs here. "Shall" does create an obligation in that regard. One isn't a "party" unless one has signed and ratified the treaty. I must be missing what you're saying because it seems to me that you are saying "yes, but no, but yes" about this.

I have only one question. 27.2 is not mentioned in analysis along with its footnote. It can be interpreted that the non-liability of an ISP is effective only when the rights are being respected. It could be interpreted that unless an ISP monitors its traffic, it will be responsible for the actions of its users. Easy to overlook, but if true and enforcement will be required from the parties, could prove a nasty trojan horse. Am I right in this? I don't think that's a ready interpretation, though the treaty is so loose that it could be possible. All that part says is that enforcement of infringement shall be effective over digital networks, and that enforcement shall not provide trade barriers or undue burdens. There's nothing that requires an ISP to monitor its traffic. Remember that infrignement itself is not redefined by ACTA. If an ISP not monitoring its customers is okay now, nothing in ACTA itself requires a change to that. To be clear, here's Article 3 of the Treaty: 1. This Agreement shall be without prejudice to provisions in a Partys law governing the availability, acquisition, scope, and maintenance of intellectual property rights. 2. This Agreement does not create any obligation on a Party to apply measures where a right in intellectual property is not protected under its laws and regulations

source: http://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/or8ag/ive_read_the_final_version_of_acta_heres_wha t_you/