[Coda]

Make sure you're up to speed on the actual version that was ratified. As I mentioned, a lot of the REALLY scary stuff that was leaked was taken out before the treaty was signed. It IS intimidating of course that it was negotiated in secret and that it essentially forces the signatories to pass laws that would otherwise not make it through Congress / Parliament. But the actual CONTENT of the treaty isn't nearly as bad as the chilling effects of SOPA.

I saw that pamphlet too. I'll give you a breakdown, by page (pamphlet page, not PDF page).

Pages 2 and 3 are accurate and not exaggerated. However, it's mostly a criticism of the process of its creation. Only the third and fourth bullet points on page 3 discuss the actual content of the treaty. Those I find to be SLIGHTLY hyperbole, in that they are accurate descriptions of the treaty, but its plurilateral nature will help keep it from going power-mad.

Page 4: Bullet point 1 is true, but tempered by several clauses saying "without prejudice" for established protections and freedoms for individual rights such as speech and privacy (that is, ACTA doesn't override those).

Page 4: Bullet point 2 is the big problem I was mentioning earlier -- it indicates that service providers have to take certain actions that may be financially infeasible for smaller companies and potentially run afoul of things like DMCA's safe harbor provisions.

Page 4: Bullet point 3 is hyperbole. While the statement is true, this is a problem even without ACTA, especially in the United States; furthermore, some European countries already have laws governing orphan works (the US does not) that would take precedence over ACTA.

Page 4: Bullet point 4 indicates that the whole pamphlet needs to be taken in context, because it's old enough that it was written before the full final text was available. I've read the final version. In particular, the "three strikes" possibility mentioned in the footnote was removed in a later draft; while it does "leave the door open" for signatory countries to pass such laws, it doesn't promote or suggest doing so and countries would be free to pass such laws whether or not they accept ACTA.

Page 5: Bullet point 1 is equivalent to Page 4 point 2.

Page 5: Bullet point 2 is somewhat speculative. The indirect effects of ACTA very well might make such things attractive for service providers. This is actually one reason SOPA is worse because it's a much more direct correlation there; ACTA leaves room in the laws of the individual countries for interpretation.

Page 5: Bullet point 3 is based on the same idea as Page 4 point 2. It's SLIGHTLY hyperbole, as this is true of ANY intellectual property legislation. From certain points of view this is actually DESIRABLE; even the average layperson will have mixed reactions to this depending on how you spin it.

Page 5: Bullet point 4 is again slightly hyperbole, for largely the same reasons.

Page 5: Bullet point 5 is again the same as Page 4 point 2.

Page 6: Bullet point 1 is a big deal if you're European, and irrelevant if you're American. This is a battle currently being fought, especially in Poland.

Page 6: Bullet point 2 is again slightly hyperbole as it doesn't require ACTA to cause the described problems.

Page 6: Bullet point 3 is VERY hyperbole. The final draft includes countless modifications to try to make things as streamlined for legitimate trade as possible, including requiring plaintiffs to reimburse defendants for their losses in the event of an illegitimate complaint. What restrictions are put in place are really quite reasonable to protect signatory countries from illicit, potentially dangerous, counterfeit prescription drugs.

Page 6: Bullet point 4 is a big problem, although I personally think it's slightly hyperbole because it's a treaty and not a law; it sounds like that may have been intentional to allow signatory countries to adapt the interpretation to comply with their own laws and the desires of their populations. The vagaries of the text are only a major problem if you believe that the governments are going to be evil about it or be unreasonably subject to lobbyists. The vagaries are in our defense if you believe that the governments will listen to the protests of their peoples.

Page 6: Bullet point 5 is a problem for legislators but not so much for the layperson. It's a problem, but not something that has direct effects that individual citizens should worry about (except to ensure that their legislative representation has their best interests in mind).

Page 6: Bullet point 6 is similar to point 5; while ACTA fails to meet those standards it doesn't mean that signatory countries can't keep those standards in mind when creating their laws.

TL;DR: Start reading here

Page 7 is really a pretty accurate summary: ACTA is vague and not very helpful in guiding its signatories for good ways to implement the laws. Whether this is simply a sign of a poorly-written treaty or if it's a harbinger of catastrophic legislation is up to the readers' belief in the fairness and wisdom of their governments (and how well they listen to their constituents).