It may have started off a counterfeit treaty...
...but somewhere along the way copyright got included into the mix, which is where we all stand. Nobody really gives a toss about counterfeit DVDs of software coming in from the east. Clobber the bastards hard, maybe our on-the-shelf wares will be a little less pricey.
But we DO care when such a sledgehammer approach is touted for something like downloading the latest Katy Perry song because it is totally disproportionate, as are the fines that groups such as the RIAA would like to levy per infringement. Maybe they are holding worldwide talks and shoving money into the mouths of greedy politicians because it would be a lot cheaper to criminalise on a whim, than to try to justify to a judge why it is such a big deal. After all, their attempts to shut down the known sharers have been met with limited success, and they can't really accuse average Joe of actively sharing because he might not even know his Torrent client shares (mmm, isn't sharing-back an obligatory part of Torrenting, anyway?).
But, wait, it gets even better. I'm surprised El Reg hasn't reported on this (or did I miss it?). The rules will also counter trademark infringement.
This might not sound like much, but consider... You're having a nice day out in a nearby town. You take a snapshot of the town square and upload it to flickr to drop into your blog posting entitled "My nice day out" (or something equally cheesy).
Well, I can see WHSmith on the left there. And there's a Boots just behind it, and a PDSA Charity Shop across the road, and that's unmistakably the Golden Arches. Not to mention that super-cute chick who is waving at you (damn, why didn't you notice her earlier!) while proudly displaying an FCUK top.
Cute girl may or may not have issue with being seen online. Hopefully not, it's a nice picture of her, but them you could always fire up your image editor and pixelate her face. But what about WHS/Boots/PDSA/McDo/FCUK? Not to mention the others. Do you have permission to publicise these trademarks? Do you need permission if it is part of a street shot? I would imagine none of the companies involved would be worried provided you aren't disparaging their image. But with the ACTA, a takedown *could* be issued for something as innocuous as that photo of your nice day out.
From all accounts, ACTA is a massive disaster lurking. The best thing our useless self-serving piece of cack politicians could do (which means they won't...) is to slam the door on anything that doesn't pass through the normal open-bicker procedures of lawmaking. This super-secret nonsense has no place in supposedly civilised democratic nations unless we're trying to beat a known terrorist threat. But 9/11 and ripping off a movie... a difference in orders of magnitude.
FAIL... European Union.
FAIL... New Zealand.
FAIL... Republic of Korea.
FAIL... United Arab Emirates.
FAIL... United Kingdom.
FAIL... United States (twice, as I bet this was their idea).
I would like to request the moderator attach a whole row of FAIL icons for this, but seeing as it's unlikely to happen, you'll just have to use your imaginations.