Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement

The Anti- Counterfeiting Trade Agreement, ACTA short, ( German Anti- Counterfeiting Trade Agreement) is a proposed multilateral trade agreement at international level. The participating nations and commonwealths want to establish with ACTA international standards in the fight against piracy and copyright infringement; in Germany it is therefore often referred to according to the English name as Anti- Counterfeiting Trade Agreement.

After extensive international protests, the European Parliament ACTA refused on 4 July 2012 by a large majority ( 478 against 39 for 165 abstentions).

• Party ( signed and ratified )
• Signatory
• Signatories with additional EU signing
• Non-signatories with EU signing
• In the signature process involved non-signatories

• 2.1 Participating countries
• 2.2 History of negotiations
• 2.3 status of signature and ratification

• 3.1 unhinging of human rights and the rule of law
• 3.2 damage to the innovation development
• 3.3 Exclusion of the public
• 3.4 Licensing of seeds and restriction of generic
• 3.5 Controversial compensation scheme

• 4.1 Poland
• 4.2 Czech Republic, Slovakia, Latvia, Slovenia, Bulgaria, the Netherlands and Lithuania
• 4.3 Germany, Austria and Switzerland
• 4.4 European Parliament
• 4.5 European protest days: 11 and 25 February 2012, and June 9, 2012
• 4.6 million anti - ACTA online signatures
• 4.7 Reactions of the EU Commission on the mass protests

• 5.1 IPRED
• 5.2 TPP
• 5.3 CETA
• 5.4 reactions

Content

ACTA is an agreement which stipulates the found in the U.S. and Europe and several other countries common to the enforcement of intellectual property rights for intellectual property as minimum standards, with the intention to bring this in other countries to bear or bring them better advantage. It is intended to ensure, according to the EU Commission sustainable growth of the world economy, pull product imitations from the market and help the European knowledge-based economies to maintain their competitiveness.

The Agreement normalized itself no rights but seeks to protect the 1994 arrangements arising from the TRIPS Agreement and submit to the parties additional obligations relating to the enforcement of intellectual property rights, not the requirements for protection or the scope.

The European Commission and the commercial agent of the United States to name three areas in which ACTA provides rules:

It is an independent ACTA Committee ( Engl: ACTA committee ) should be established with the task to monitor compliance with the Treaty, to negotiate changes in the ACTA treaty, to determine the admission of new members and to help non- ACTA partners, ACTA provisions to incorporate into their national law.

The supporters of the Agreement, in particular the recycling industry, such as record labels or movie studios, hoping to ACTA, a disincentive dissemination, disclosure and illegal sale of protected material.

Regulations

Chapter I (1-5 ) Introduction

Section 1 (1-4)

Article 1 explicitly states that ACTA other agreements, such as the TRIPS Agreement, no overrides.

Article 2 defines the nature and extent of the resulting by ACTA obligations:

• ACTA specifies what the parties have put into law. How this is done is left to the parties, as long as these measures are not contrary to the ACTA treaty. Explicitly is called also the possibility that counterparties to enforce stricter rules to protect intellectual property, as provided by ACTA.
• In Article 2, paragraph ( 2) the agreement specifies that it does not make any stipulations which funds are to be used to enforce the law on intellectual property.

Articles 7 and 8 of TRIPS, Article 2, paragraph 3 shall apply mutatis mutandis. These standards for the protection of the citizens are thus instrumental in the design of ACTA:

• Article 7 of the TRIPS The protection and enforcement of intellectual property rights should contribute to the promotion of technological innovation and to the transfer and dissemination of technology, to the mutual advantage of producers and users of technological knowledge, take place in a social and economic well- manner conducive and a balance between rights and obligations manufacture.

• ( 1) Members shall take such measures when drafting or amending their laws and regulations that are necessary to protect public health and nutrition, and to promote the public interest in the vital importance to their socio -economic and technical development sectors; However, these measures must be compatible with this Convention.
• ( 2) Appropriate measures, provided that they are consistent with this Convention may be necessary to prevent the abuse of intellectual property rights by right holders or the resort to practices which unreasonably restrain trade or affect the international transfer of technology disadvantageous.

Article 3 states that national provisions shall not be affected the law of intellectual property by ACTA. Explicitly specifies that a contractor is not obliged to implement measures if a certain aspect of intellectual property is not protected by the national legal system.

Article 4 contains privacy provisions. In particular, it is determined that ACTA a Party shall not be obliged to disclose information that is protected by the national legal system (eg, to protect privacy ).

Section 2 ( 5) Definitions

Here are the key definitions, including that of intellectual property rights are affected at all.

Chapter II ( 6-27 ) actions to enforce intellectual property rights

Section 1 (6 ) General obligations

Each signatory state is obliged to provide methods in national law, allow the effective protection of intellectual property. This corresponds to the current provisions of the German legal system. Furthermore, enshrined a speedy trial, the principle of proportionality, and state liability law neutrality in Article 6.

Section 2 (7-12 ) Civil and Civil Litigation

Footnote 2 patents and unpublished information described in this section protection measures to be exempted.

Article 7 specifies that each of the signatory states to provide civil legal proceedings for the enforcement of intellectual property rights available.

According to Article 8 civil courts are in the signatory States have the option to adopt warnings. This should especially be used to prevent the spread of counterfeit products authorized within a signatory state. In certain cases, such a warning will be replaced by the payment of remuneration.

Article 9 deals with compensation claims. These are to be determined by civil proceedings in which the damages can be based on lost profits of the copyright holder or at the current market value of the goods or their suggested retail price Especially for copyright infringement, the damages according to the following principles to be determined:

• Payment of a lump sum and / or
• Pay for the loss sustained ( eg, estimated by calculating the turnover, which is overlooked by the rights holder) and / or
• Additional damages.

Process costs are to be paid by the losing party.

The imitative products should be allowed to be destroyed ( Article 10). Pursuant to Article 11 courts may order that the infringer for the court or the right holder submits further information that is in the possession of the infringer. This information can e.g.

• Any complicity concern or
• Production means for producing the forgery or
• The distribution channels.

Article 12 governs the grant of interim injunctions. In certain cases the grant of interim injunctions should be possible even without hearing both parties, eg if otherwise to cause irreparable harm, or where evidence would be destroyed. However, may require the applicant dishes that he provides evidence from which the need for a preliminary injunction is apparent. The applicant of such injunction may be required to provide a deposit, which serves to protect the defendant. Finally, it is determined that the defendant by the applicant can claim damages if an injunction in hindsight proves to be unjustified.

Section 3 ( 13-22 ) inches

Again, ( as described in footnote 6) patents and unpublished information except.

Customs controls with regard to the protection of intellectual property are allowed, but should be designed so that the trade is not unreasonably difficult ( Article 13).

Checks should be carried out for small shipments commercial nature. Private programs may be exempted from these controls ( Article 14).

The competent authorities may ask rights holders to help them for prosecution of copyright violations, with relevant evidence ( Article 15). There are procedures in place that allow the customs authorities to detain suspect goods or delay their release. This applies to both import and export consignments as well as consignments in transit.

The customs authorities may intervene on their own initiative or at the request of a right holder ( Article 16).

Article 17 stipulates how such a request should look. There must be sufficient information and evidence to prove the copyright infringement. Otherwise, the application may be rejected by the authorities. The abolition of border controls due to the Schengen Agreement is considered.

Article 18 stipulates that the applicant must pay a proportionate deposit to prevent abuse of this customs controls. If the customs authorities of an infringement notice (Article 19), imitation and plagiarism can be destroyed ( Article 20).

The authorities should be empowered to impose administrative penalties where an infringement has been detected. The signatory States may allow their customs authorities to provide information on retained goods or their origins to the rightholders. This disclosure of information must be made, if an infringement under Article 19 has been detected. ( Article 22).

Section 4 (23-26) criminal law

The contract specifies in Article 23 standards before it has to fulfill the criminal law of the signatory States of: penalties and criminal proceedings arising out of violations of copyright will be imposed if this violation occurs intentionally and on a commercial scale. The term ' commercial scale ' in this context includes all actions a, " are used to obtain a direct or indirect economic or commercial advantage " the. In particular, penalties are provided for the importation or use of packaging or labels which violate a registered trademark. The unauthorized recording of films during a film screening may be criminalized. The aid to one of the above-mentioned Offenses should be punished. Work will also include legal persons can be prosecuted.

Article 24 provides that both adhesion and fines can be imposed. The penalties should be such that they have a deterrent effect on potential offenders.

Article 25 sets minimum standards for the seizure, forfeiture and destruction. In general, the competent authorities shall have the right to confiscate goods for which there is a suspicion of a violation of copyright. Goods in which a violation of copyright was found may be confiscated and destroyed. Please do not use devices that were used to produce these goods be confiscated and destroyed. Compensation of the infringer is expressly excluded. In addition, the courts of the signatory States shall have the power to order the seizure and inclusion of assets of the infringer.

Article 23, paragraph 1 is to the current German standard in § § 106, 108 of the Copyright Act and § correspond 143 Mark. § 143 Mark in conjunction with § 14 of the Trademark correspond exactly to the phrases " commercial traffic ", " participate in the exercise of their own or others or promote business interests in the labor force " and without " profit or pecuniary interest presupposing " as they statuiert ACTA.

The inclusion of labels and packaging in the second paragraph of Article 23 is to § 143 in connection with § 14, paragraph 2, points 1, 2 and 3 correspond to paragraph Trademark Law.

The provisions of Articles 24 to 26 are to the provisions of § § 106 paragraph 1, 108 paragraph 1 of the Copyright Act, § 143, paragraph 1 and 2 Trademark, § 46 of the Penal Code, § § 73 ff of the Criminal Code and Code of Criminal Procedure § 160 correspond.

Section 5 (27 ) Intellectual property in a digital environment

Article 27 describes the intended procedures to protect intellectual property on the Internet and in the use of digital media.

Basically, intellectual property should be treated in the digital environment as well as outside (Article 27, paragraph 1). This also applies to digital networks. Enforcement procedures for intellectual property may not lead to lawful activities hampered the Internet (eg, the digital trading as ) but. In addition, the primacy of fundamental rights such as freedom of expression, privacy, and protection of privacy is emphasized (Article 27, paragraph 2). In a footnote, the agreement suggests that regulations on the limitation of liability of Internet service providers are to be introduced, as well as regulations on the restriction of appeals against Internet service provider.

Cooperation initiatives in the economy of the protection of intellectual property rights should be promoted, if this cooperation efforts do not restrict legitimate competition. Moreover it is stressed that such cooperation shall not adversely affect general principles of law (such as freedom of expression, the right to a fair trial or the right to the protection of privacy ). (Article 27, paragraph 3).

Online providers should be forced by the competent authorities to provide a right holder to give information to enable an infringer can be identified. Again, however, the primacy of fundamental legal principles (such as freedom of expression, the right to a fair trial or the right to the protection of privacy ) is emphasized again. Likewise, it is emphasized that such measures lawful activities on the Internet should not be hampered (Article 27, paragraph 4).

Paragraphs 5-8 of Article 27 dealing with the digital rights management ( DRM) technology. The Parties should introduce legislation against the circumvention of DRM. Shall be punishable by the removal of such a protective mechanism, as well as the production, dissemination and use of procedures for the removal of such a protective mechanism used.

The provisions of paragraphs 4 to 8 are to the provisions in § 101 of the Copyright Act IX, § 95a of the Copyright Act, § 303b StGB and § 108b correspond to the Copyright Act.

Chapter III (28-32 ) enforcement practices

Article 28 specifies that the border authorities of expertise to build intellectual property in the area. The internal coordination between authorities should be promoted and structures to better communication between the authorities and rights holders are created.

Article 29 regulates the cooperation between the border authorities of the signatory States. It is determined that the border authorities may exchange information when it appears necessary to secure intellectual property rights.

In Articles 30 and 31 is determined that the Parties should take measures to publicize the existing laws to protect intellectual property in public. Furthermore, the signatory states to increase public awareness of the importance of intellectual property.

The Article 29 Data Protection Working Party of the EU claims that ACTA will not bring a breach of European data protection law with it.

Chapter IV ( 33-35 ) International cooperation

Where collaboration is described, which is to coordinate the set up in Chapter V of the ACTA Committee. In particular, Article 35 regulates that other, non - ACTA countries in the implementation of regulations within the meaning of ACTA is to be helped.

Chapter V (36-38 ) Institutional arrangements ( ACTA Committee )

Here, the ACTA committee is constituted, the working language is English.

Chapter VI ( 39-45 ) Final Provisions

Articles 39-45 regulate, inter alia, the following details: Signing of the Treaty ( Article 39), the entry into force of the Treaty ( Article 40), withdrawal of a State signatory of the Treaty (Article 41), amending the Treaty (Article 42), and the subsequent accession of a State to the Treaty (Article 43).

Negotiations

Participating countries

• Countries that have stopped ratification of ACTA
• EU countries with ongoing ratification process
• Other countries with ongoing ratification process

At the ACTA negotiations following countries were involved:

• Australia
• European Union, represented by the European Commission, with its Member States. Some EU Member States have ratified, however, despite original commitment have been stopped because of the mass protests (Latvia, Poland, Slovakia, Czech Republic, Austria, Bulgaria, the Netherlands, Lithuania, Slovenia, Romania, Finland and Germany ).
• Japan
• Jordan
• Canada
• Morocco
• Mexico
• New Zealand
• Switzerland
• Singapore
• South Korea
• United Arab Emirates
• United States

History of the negotiations

Already on sidelines of the G8 summit in St. Petersburg in 2006 began the preliminary discussions on ACTA between the U.S. and Japan.

The negotiations on the details of the agreement began in Geneva in 2008 and ended after the twelfth round of negotiations in December 2010 in Sydney. These negotiations were held behind closed doors, which is why for a long time the exact status of negotiations and the positions of individual countries were unknown. The United Arab Emirates and Jordan took after the first round of negotiations in June 2008 no longer participate in the negotiations.

To enforce copyright claims on the Internet at the international level, the ISP has been discussed, among other things, to be held liable for crimes committed by their clients copyright infringement as spoilers. They have this responsibility can only escape through a commitment to monitor the traffic of its customers and to lock them in accordance with the controversial three strikes principle the Internet after three copyright violations.

In March 2010, there was an unauthorized release ( leak ) of a pre-release version. Another pre-release version, which summarized the results of the Lucerne - round from 1 July 2010, was also leaked in July 2010.

In early March 2010, the European Parliament, the EU Commission in an inter -party motion on to inform Parliament about all stages of the negotiations.

After the last round of negotiations, the ACTA Parties submitted on 3 December 2010 in front of an almost final version. The final version was presented at the end of May 2011. Compared to the version dated December This contained a few changes and put above all the period within which the contract is to be signed, the period from 1 May 2011 to 1 May 2013.

Before ACTA to enter into force in the EU, the Council of the European Union and the European Parliament must approve the contract. The consent of the Council is carried out in two steps. He must first adopt a decision on the signing of the Agreement and adopt a decision on the actual adoption of the Agreement following the ratification. The first happened on 16 December 2011 in a non-public session in the Council of Agriculture and Fisheries. Since ACTA includes provisions on criminal law, for which the EU has no regulatory authority, it is a mixed agreement, which must also include yourself and ratify the EU Member States.

Status of signature and ratification

On October 1, 2011 ACTA was signed by Canada, Australia, Japan, Morocco, New Zealand, South Korea, Singapore and the United States. In the round in Tokyo on 26 January 2012, the EU, Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Poland, Portugal, signed, Romania, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden and the United Kingdom.

By vote of 4 July 2012, the European Parliament has decided not to ratify ACTA, which is why ACTA, the EU can not enter into force.

Only when six states have ratified ACTA, the Convention is in force ( ACTA Article 40) enter into force thirty days thereafter. Still no State has deposited its instrument of ratification, acceptance or approval with the Depositary Japan.

Criticism

Several dozen eminent scientists (including the Max Planck Institute ) have called in collaboration with recognized lawyers in a detailed critique the European Parliament to ACTA not agree. In politics and public following criticisms are increasingly known and are discussed accordingly.

Unhinging of human rights and the rule of law

Amnesty International believes that " the agreement on account of its content, has anchored there procedures and institutions negative impact on several human rights, especially the right to a fair trial, the right to respect for private life, freedom of information, freedom of expression and the right access to essential medicines. "

EDRi, an international association of civil rights groups, ACTA sees as an unhinging of fundamental legal principles. Promoting the cooperation of private companies to enforce the agreement could lead to alleged violations of actors outside the judicial systems are prosecuted and punished. This made those referred to in section 5 of the Treaty principles of law ( freedom of expression, the right to a fair trial and protection) ineffective. This is contrary turn of the obligation under Article 21 of the EU Treaty to respect in all contracts to ensure compliance with the rule of law.

Best known is the presumption of opponents, ACTA could affect the freedom of expression on the Internet and lead to censorship of private law. Many Internet users see the reforms as an intrusion into the privacy and fundamental rights. It was and it is feared, could that international trade agreements provide a starting point for the global enforcement of Internet blocking or lead to Three- Strikes model as in France.

According to paragraph 5 of the Federal Constitutional Court judgment regarding the retention, which would be required for review by the Internet service provider, a serious crime in Germany is required to legally ( if indeed there is a constitutional contemporary law ) listen to the complete contents of a communication.

According to § 100a of the Code of Criminal Procedure ( CCP) is in Germany, the interception of communications only in the case of listed in this section, " serious offense " (eg high treason and endangering the democratic order ) legitimate.

Damage to the innovation development

Another important point of criticism is that ACTA circumcise Freedom to innovate and thus lived democratic values ​​such as equal opportunities, educational opportunities, research and rights of all enterprises; existing business models would thus unilaterally preferred. For example, the Association of the German Internet Industry sees a threat to the German economic growth by a softening of the "reliable national and international legal framework of the Internet economy, which is a prerequisite for innovation and the global digital development." The Working Group against Internet blocking and censorship criticized ACTA cements a reform needy Copyright and recycling law, which is obsolete in today's digital age.

Exclusion of the public

The exclusion of public as well as the responsible authority for the issues organizations such as the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO ), the World Trade Organization (WTO ) and the EU Parliament, the years of ACTA negotiations did not produce results undemocratic. The organization Reporters Without Borders said in reference to the publication of the trial results of a " prevention of democratic debate." As the negotiators assume that the contract is only as enforced, they deal specifically with those international institutions that would be responsible for such discussions, such as the WIPO, which was founded as a democratic body straight for the topics covered and transparent negotiations with a larger number would require of participants.

Also, the EU Parliament, the competent committee INTA is to decide on 21 June 2012 on ACTA, important documents have been withheld for years to ACTA.

Criticism is also that ACTA by deliberately vague formulations produces legal uncertainty. For the interpretation of unclear terms the negotiation protocols are to be used to the contract, however, have not yet been published. Therefore, it is absurd and carry no way to transparency, if the parliaments would vote at the present time about the draft agreement because they do not know the exact content of the contract and its importance to this day.

Licensing of seed and restriction of generic

Critics - for example, by the Anonymous movement or of the Left Party - assume that the agreement deny access to seeds and essential generic drugs to poorer countries or could at least limit. Also Kader Arif, former rapporteur for ACTA European Parliament, sees a danger of ACTA for generics.

The critics are also of the view that in the copyright "suspicious deliveries [ ... ] could be reviewed - and not only in the origin and destination of the goods, but also in transit countries ", which in turn [ could ] take company " as an approach to draw generic [ or other products such as seeds ] from the market if they happen to third countries with corresponding prohibitions - even if these drugs under the laws of the destination country legally would be. "

As a result, generic drugs could ( affordable imitations or modifications of drugs ) will be confiscated according to ACTA opponents by the Agreement, for example, from European customs and thus complicates the drug treatment of AIDS, HIV and other diseases in the Third World or be prevented.

These concerns also come from the aid organization Doctors Without Borders, which has called on the states involved, ACTA not to sign up any uncertainty about the potential limitation of the production of generic medicines have been removed.

Controversial compensation scheme

Problematizes the damages provision in Article 9 FFII believes the expansion of damages for loss of profits would not reflect the loss suffered the copyright holder. Madhukar Sinha, professor at the Institute for Foreign Trade Indian Institute of Foreign Trade is concerned, this could lead to excessive damages. Joachim Schrey says, this possibility would be to German copyright law today and would therefore mean no change.

Anti- ACTA mass protests and ratification stops

The Pirate Parties of various countries already organized on 26 and 28 June 2010 demonstrations against ACTA. The demonstrations took place in several countries, including in some German cities. It was organized here, the Pirate Party Germany. In spring 2011, followed in Europe more and much larger demonstrations since the ratification of the law approached by the EU countries.

Poland

Since 25 January 2012, arrived in Poland to mass protests. In the cities of Warsaw, Gdansk, Krakow, Wroclaw, Gdynia, Katowice, Gorzów Wielkopolski, Sosnowiec, Bydgoszcz, Koszalin, Częstochowa, Olsztyn, Rzeszow, Szczecin, Toruń, Bielsko- Biała, Zielona Góra and Łódź tens of thousands of people went against the ACTA legislation on the street. Sociologists speak of the "greatest civil rights movement since the founding of the Solidarity trade union 1980". On February 3, the ratification of ACTA in Poland was stopped because of the strong protests until further notice. At the same time said Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk, it " applies, the western culture to protect against Internet piracy ," and his government would not withdraw ACTA, " just because a group of the " demand - such a government could equal resign. On February 17, 2012 Tusk regrets his signature for ACTA and the EU parliament urged to stop the anti-piracy agreement ACTA. Tusk said: "I was wrong. The arguments have convinced me. " [ The agreement did not comply ] " the reality of the 21st century. " At the same time the ratification of ACTA in Slovenia Tusk to all parties in the European Parliament, with which it cooperates his Civic Platform, wrote an open letter in which he proposes to reject ACTA.

Czech Republic, Slovakia, Latvia, Slovenia, Bulgaria, the Netherlands and Lithuania

On February 6, 2012, the ACTA ratification of the Czech Republic was stopped after protests until further notice after the anti - ACTA protests had reached a new peak. So " hacker" movement Anonymous have stolen a list of private information to all members of the ruling party ODS and they leaked the Czech newspapers.

On February 7, also took place because of the mass protests ratification a stop in Slovakia and on 9 February in Latvia.

The Slovenian Ambassador to Japan Helena Drnovsek Zorko regretted her signature and apologized " clearly in the public and with their children for having signed the contract ." They further called " the Slovenes, is possible in number to participate in the anti - ACTA protest action".

On February 14, sat and Bulgaria on February 15, the Netherlands and Lithuania, the ratification of. Slovenia also considering a halt to ratification.

Germany, Austria and Switzerland

On February 10, announced in Germany with the German Foreign Office that it had withdrawn the instructions issued to the signing of the controversial treaty again.

On February 18, was also in Austria Johann Mayer, member of the Social Democratic Party announced that the National Council, the agreement is not ratified prior to confirmation by the European Parliament. Although the Austrian People's Party still hesitates, but alone can ratify anything.

On 9 May 2012, the Swiss Federal Council announced that for the time being not to sign ACTA.

EU Parliament

On 4 July 2012, the European Parliament rejected with 478 votes against from ( 39 votes in favor and 165 abstentions).

The groups in the European Parliament voted as follows:

European protest days: 11 and 25 February 2012, and June 9, 2012

In Germany, France, Poland, the UK, Bulgaria, Portugal, Canada, Austria, Switzerland and other countries, many demonstrations against ACTA found on 11 February 2012 under the motto " ACTA shelved " instead. Despite the icy temperatures around -10 ° C have demonstrated in 55 cities against ACTA in Germany about 100,000 people. The published the day before the demonstrations to the German Federal Minister of Justice Sabine Leutheusser -Schnarrenberger, for the time being not to sign ACTA, it came under severe criticism, as this was seen as an attempt to let the demonstrations appear to be useless and the agreement nevertheless at a later date to sign ( for example during the 2012 European Football Championship ), if the public interest is no longer focused on ACTA.

The protests, among others, the anti-globalization network Attac, the Pirate Party, Alliance 90/The Greens, the Left, and the Chaos Computer Club were supported (CCC). Europe demonstrated on February 11, 150000-200000 people in 200 cities.

On February 25, found further protests held in numerous European countries.

On 9 May 2012, a few days before the expected vote in the EU Parliament, other international protests were held.

Million anti - ACTA online signatures

• Avaaz: The political platform Avaaz collected since 25 January 2012 on 2.8 million online signatures against the ACTA project, their second most successful campaign to date (after against SOPA with over 3.4 million signatures).

• Campact: The online campaign platform Campact appealed to the German Members of the European Parliament, to reject ACTA on 29 February 2012 the Committee on International Trade of the European Parliament, and gathered thereof over 71,000 online signatures.
• Public online petition of the German Bundestag: About the Internet platform of the German Bundestag for an online petition launched on 10 February 2012 a public petition with the aim to suspend the ratification of ACTA. This could be co-signed by 22 March 2012 by supporters of the concern, which corresponded to a period of 6 weeks. Target of supporters was to be able to show more than 50,000 Mitzeichner already in the first 4 weeks to be invited and consulted by the Petitions Committee of the German Bundestag; However, 10 March 2012 there were only about 35,000 Mitzeichner, therefore this objective could not be achieved. On 15 March 2012, the turnout was 55,000 at the petition Mitzeichner so that a public consultation of the Committee on Petitions must be made.

Reactions of the EU Commission on the mass protests

The EU Commission is also despite the mass protests no reason to take by the ACTA legislation distance, and performs the actions of the demonstrators back to " inadequate information policy " of the EU. The European Commissioner Karel de Gucht speaks in this context of an " aggressive pan- European campaign against ACTA ", but advocates submit ACTA regard to relevant fundamental rights the Court for consideration.

On 13 February 2012, the EU Justice Commissioner Viviane Reding called for a review of the ACTA legislation by the European Court of Justice (ECJ ). She said: "The protection of intellectual property rights may lead to cancellation of expression and freedom of information never justified " and therefore had power locks never an option. In December 2012, the European Commission announced that it was withdrawing its request to the European Court of Justice (ECJ ) for a legal opinion on the Anti Counterfeiting Trade Agreement ( ACTA), because it sees no realistic prospects for concluding this agreement more.

Content overlaps with future agreements

IPRED

Despite the commitment of the leaders of the Conservative Party in the European Parliament, Joseph Daul, ACTA is " the end", see the critics of ACTA, the topic continues to be a threat, as the Intellectual Property Rights Enforcement Directive ( IPRED ) policy, particularly in relation to the Internet ACTA is very similar. According to the Pirate Party Braunschweig could be blocked with IPRED just like with ACTA an internet connection on call by the rights owner and without a court order. This means " in the worst case a reversal of the burden of proof. Want an interested party have its Internet access back, [ must ] he go to court and prove his innocence. Here no longer [ is true ] now the principle of presumption of innocence. Instead, [ would ] be another attempt to make each and every citizen under a general suspicion and criminalize. "

TPP

The TPP, for " Trans-Pacific Strategic Economic Partnership " to ACTA also be very similar. According net activist Markus Beckedahl under the leadership of the U.S., the countries that represent a particularly hard line, such as prison sentences for Exchange users in Japan. Collect under this Agreement In the TPP to find points of ACTA again that had been removed or diluted led by the EU under the Agreement.

For the forthcoming arrangements for the "Trans - Pacific Partnership ," which currently is negotiating with Washington Pacific neighbors, is urging the Internet Society ( ISOC ) to more transparency and the question whether that agreement contains provisions similar to those ACTA or CETA.

CETA

Excerpts from a planned trade agreements CETA (Canada - European Union Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement) between the EU and Canada have been released from the law professor Michael Geist. In this bill controversial clauses of the ACTA agreement can be found in a chapter on " intellectual property " back. In a comparison of the two texts they would act as copied from one another. Included are about the three strikes system of " graduated response " to copyright infringement and a right to information on determining IP addresses of infringers.

John Clancy, spokesman for EU Trade Commissioner Karel De Gucht comments on the leaked document on the basis of the public pressure that passages for enhanced "cooperation" between ISPs and rights-holders and civil right to information about IP addresses were not longer part of the current CETA draft. There have since been changes and it could be followed by further corrections.

IDG cited further that the rejection of the EU Parliament is taken into account to ACTA during a review of the text. The criminal penalties contained in the Commission negotiates on behalf of the Member States alone. Similar to the trade agreement with South Korea could look like the result. The enforcement provisions contained therein and vague formulations go to the FFII ( Free Information Infrastructure ) much too far. Ask to put the current text of the contract on the table and end the secrecy.

Reactions

Civil rights organization such as La Quadrature du Net demand after the emergence of similar projects in the responsible for ACTA as CETA initiator EU Trade Commissioner Karel De Gucht, that this should ignore the will of the citizens no longer, as European representatives of the people had clearly expressed their intention. They demand that CETA must be stopped, just as other attempts to resurrect ACTA again.

The Internet Defense League

In direct response to ACTA was established in July 2012, the " Internet Defense League " (short IDL to German League for the Defense of the Internet ) was founded. In addition to ACTA, the organization has expressly objected CISPA, PIPA and SOPA, and all fundamental intervention in the liberal structures of the Internet. For Internet Defense League include, for example, the Mozilla Foundation, the WordPress software, respectively, the company behind it Automattic and the social bookmarking service Reddit. Every operator of a Web site can participate in the Internet Defense League by installing a widget.