Sharing knowledge and information is a part of cultural, social, and political activities through digital technologies. Thanks to the internet, information is shared and spread quickly. That’s why we like to share our favorite cultural information with others. For this reason, we produce shared information and works such as Wikipedia or some free software.

ACTA, a multilateral agreement on stopping internet theft, has had a serious impact on the way internet actors deal with copyright issues. ACTA puts pressure on the internet industry, companies, and those who provide access to information, video games, search engines, and social networks. ACTA requires them to cooperate with the entertainment industry in a specific way and without the need for a judge or court. Therefore, when the entertainment industry asks them to remove their products from access, these companies must comply with their demands.

Therefore, in terms of bypassing legal rules, when anyone is faced with an accusation, this agreement prevents any defense. In order to prevent others from accessing the relevant

These are part of the remarks of “Jeremy Zimmermann” from the organization “Quadrature du Net” (an organization that supports internet users’ rights) which he made on EuroNews network about the role of this law.

ACTA is a legal agreement that was formed through negotiations between 39 countries, including members of the European Union, the United States, Japan, Australia, South Korea, Singapore, and others. The whispers of such negotiations began in May 2008, after news was leaked on the WikiLeaks website. The law, which focused heavily on “intellectual property rights,” suddenly became a controversial decision and sparked numerous protests. It is said that from the start of negotiations until October 2011, news of such negotiations did not leak to any media outlet, which only added to the suspicion of internet users as to why it was kept secret from them.

This agreement, which is primarily designed to combat illegal buying and selling of drugs and protect intellectual property rights in cyberspace, covers a wide range and includes preventing the sale of counterfeit goods and illegal downloads from internet websites.

The Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) is an international effort to protect the intellectual property rights of cultural products by prohibiting the counterfeiting of goods and online piracy. At least thirty countries, including Japan, the United States, Canada, and members of the European Union, have reached an initial agreement on this treaty, and some European countries such as Germany have also delayed their agreement.

Opponents say that this agreement opens the way for interference in online legal freedoms, including blocking this network. Data guardians have also expressed concerns about the information of citizens. They say that this agreement could force active companies in the field of communications to provide information about their customers to other authorities.

Protests of opponents.

Despite the fact that protests have taken place throughout the European Union and the world, there is no opportunity in this writing to examine and express them, and for this reason, I will only refer to the successful example of Poland, which was the first country to protest against this law. To understand the depth of the protests, it is enough to mention that major websites such as Google, Wikipedia, and Twitter blocked their services for a day in protest against the complementary laws (SOPA and PIPA).

The first protests in Poland took place when the government announced that it would sign this law on January 26, 2012. On the 21st of this month, a group of anonymous hackers shut down several government websites, including the Prime Minister’s website. Protests against this law continued. On January 24, more than a thousand protesters marched to the European Parliament. 15,000 people in Krakow and 5,000 people in Wroclaw also protested. Finally, a number of famous Polish websites were taken down to put this law to a public vote, so that the people could determine the fate of Poland’s membership. The result of this vote was very surprising, with 64% of the people opposing the government’s signing of this law. 60% of the people believed that by signing this law, the government would not meet the demands raised, and 50% of them believed that this law violated the principles of freedom. Protests continued on January

What does this law say?

To understand what this law says and the reasons for objections, I refer to a summary of news.

• The United States, Japan, South Korea, and other countries in favor of the ACTA agreement state that the existence of such an agreement is necessary to establish coordinated and unified principles and regulations at the international level to protect the rights of producers in music, film, medicine, fashion, and a wide range of products and innovations that have not yet reached the market. (Voice of America news agency)

• Some of the protesters carried placards with them that read, “Octa equals 1984,” which is a reference to the famous book by George Orwell with the same title, which depicts an imaginary society where the government constantly monitors all movements of the people through surveillance cameras.

• One of these protesters says: “My main reason for participating in these protests is that the Octa agreement was approved without consulting the people. Before it was approved, it should have been discussed with the people.”

• The discussions related to the preparation of this controversial contract were brought up in complete secrecy. Last year, the text of this contract was published. Prior to that, only the name of this contract and the covert operations of member countries had caused many rumors in this regard. Finally, 22 European countries, including Sweden, signed this contract in Tokyo. (Radio Sweden)

• Opponents say that the general and interpretable text of the contract gives the authorities the power to trample on the individual rights of citizens. The vagueness of the details of this contract has caused fear and created many rumors. For example, it is said that airport customs can confiscate people’s computers or electronic devices to check if there is any pirated software or music on them. Furthermore, more responsibility has been placed on internet service companies to monitor their subscribers and they will face heavy fines if they do not comply with the terms of this contract.

Magnus Graner, spokesperson for the Swedish Ministry of Justice, says that this agreement undermines the balance between the rights of copyright holders and the rights of citizenship and freedom of individuals. He states that such agreements are in conflict with the constitution.