I have not looked at the text of the agreement myself but several news outlets have reported that ACTA's final text is considerably more permissive then earlier drafts. Of particular interest is the section on the roles of ISPS...
Each 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 infringement of copyrights or related rights and where such information is being sought for the purpose of protecting or enforcing copyright or related rights. These procedures shall be implemented in a manner that avoids the creation of barriers to legitimate activity, including electronic commerce, and, consistent with each Party’s law, preserves fundamental principles such as freedom of expression, fair process, and privacy.
While the text does encourage laws that will force ISPs to disclose users identites, it
does not require it as part of the agreement. This means the the offending section of Bill C-32, which does excatly that, can be removed and the still remain compliant with ACTA.
The text is also considerably more permissive towards the digital lock provisions as well. While I am happy to see this, I am worried that any C-32 reform prompted by ACTA will focus exclusively on the digital locks. We don't want file-sharers to be left out of C-32 reform.
This could be a crucial step, if we continue to press the government about C-32(and not just about digital locks!) we might actually find a government that more responsive.
