For starters, I wouldn't protect one minor civil liberty by forfeiting at least two fundamental ones. I wouldn't hand over complete power to the government to blindly protect these rights in any manor it sees fit.
I would instead make it much easier for copyright holders to protect their property and pursue their cases through courts by exempting them from the standard legal fees that they're currently subject to. Something which deters most from pursuing such cases in the first place as they simply cannot afford it.
Secondary? What rights are secondary? Recording artists have none. The RIAA acts only on the behalf of the big four of the music industry.
All of whom were recently hit by a truly massive lawsuit in Canada over unpaid royalties and similar instances of copyright theft (which it then becomes as they broke the contracts, nullifying their claim to ownership).
Imagine a circle completely filled with one colour of your choice. That right there is a pie chart of the RIAA's priorities. There is no secondary consideration.

Not sure if I'm alone on this, but I don't think piracy (not referring to the hardcore murderous piracy) is wrong and I don't believe in Imaginary Property. However, I do think that financially supporting artists, developers, writers, film makers etc for their work is a good thing. I buy games on GoG, much for this reason.
A wonderful effect of digital computing & huge networks, is that people from all over the world can communicate, exchange ideas, thoughts, pictures, films and music with each other. They can do this very quickly & efficiently. Out of all of this we get amazing websites like Wikipedia, which let us share & access vasts amount of knowledge. If you create something made of, or that can be easily converted into 0s & 1s, then people are going to want to share and enjoy it freely (free as in freedom and as in price). This is human nature. The only way I can see that people can force other people to pay for their 0s & 1s is with very advanced DRM (check out the NGSCB article on wikipedia) and/or very privacy invasive laws (see ACTA). So that's too extremes: extremely closed, secret and hidden (NGSCB), or extremely open, exposed and public (ACTA), as in, everyone know's who you are and what you've done.
To date I've never met a person AFK that has claimed to not have pirated (read: shared) at least 1 copyrighted digital artifact, which they did not receive permission to obtain. I'm not saying that because lots of people do something it's right (I don't believe that). I am suggesting that piracy is normal behavior. As for the statement:. I don't see things as black and white as that. It's a complicated problem, with many interested parties, each with their own agenda. In my opinion, the people writing these laws (ACTA), are not acting in the interest or needs of artists, writers or other people; I think they are acting in the interest of shareholders. I think the shareholders are purely thinking about profit. I'm not sure people buy shares because companies "do the right thing".
Richard Stallman has an interesting perspective on copyright. Might be interesting / enlightening / enraging reading for some of you.
-Kom

What matters is how it's implemented. If the assumption of guilt becomes the standard, this is going to present huge problems for 'Joe Average' who cannot afford to fight these huge corporations and their cadres of high priced lawyers when they're accused of being a dirty rotten pirate. The burden of proof must be on the accuser, not the accused. At first glance, this proposal appears to be turning that around.
This type of thing is a slippery slope. Even if it has good intentions, of which I have my doubts, the sheer draconian nature of it is opening the door for further restrictions and abuse of power. While I applaud the goal of this type of thing, I worry about its implementation and where it can lead.

When I said ignorant, I didn't mean it in a derogatory manner, its just that people aren't aware of the current consequences, (or can't physically realise it).
(I can hardly call myself scum can I? XD)
And I would agree that those in power only really see things from a business perspective.
I should know, I'm undertaking a management course at uni, so the very concepts that are at play are exposed to me daily. (But at least I have the opportunity and the resources to see other perspectives on these matters, and are openly encouraged to challenge the established norms! :D).

Anyone who supports this either hasn't read any history or simply has lacks the ability to think for themselves. People sharing books, music, games has been going on for as long as those things have existed. In many cases sharing has increased awareness for writer/musicians/games. As a matter of fact Metallica the first band to make a big issue out of piracy started their rise to fame because of tape trading back in the 80s. More shockingly i'm surprised by how few people realize how little of the generated income makes it back to the original producers of the works and how much of it ends up in the hands of intermediaries. The system is flawed and needs reform, but the wealth controlled by these companies makes it easy to form public opinion and to bend governments to their will. Governments dont really serve the people anymore anyway. their main agenda is to support the mega corporations that feed them with money. "A Taxi for hire" as a certain politician put it so eloquently.

Who said anything about forfeiting rights? You mean innocent until proven guilty and the right to a trial? i see a lot of folks saying that is what ACTA will do, but I can't find and documentation on it. Granted, I only spent about 15 minutes looking. If you have that language handy in a link, would you please provide it?
Money makes the world go round, and I find nothing wrong with that. Nothing at all. I am a dyed in the wool capitalist, so sue me... if you can afford it ;).
And, so they should, since it is the recording labels footing the bills. Just, in this case the artists interests usually coincide. i am not saying the labels aren't heartless, they are, however I think that is just good business practice.
Well, they did break their contract... You think people should be allowed to run around willy nilly breaking contracts without consequence? No, don't answer that, it might depress me, hehehe.
It is olive drab, just like the (old) Marine uniforms... PRETTY! And yes, profit motive is the only motive the RIAA has. I am fine with that; at least I know where they stand.

You are most welcome - And for getting rid of that other fascist back in the 40's too.

In the UK this is taking the shape of the Digital Economy Bill (at least I assume it must be the same thing as it serves the same purpose).
Essentially it allows corporations to take action directly, completely bypassing judicial process. They get to determine the innocent from the guilty themselves. Which, being a staunch capitalist you must be in favour of, as true capitalism leaves little to no room for government anyway.
I don't know about other countries, but that's what we're being faced with.
There clearly would be a great deal of theft, murder and extortion in your Utopia.
No... What I'm trying to point out here is: those rights they're so keen to enforce? They don't have them.

Anything i pirate is either overpriced, unavailable or something i don't really want. This act isnt going to make me pay for anything i would have pirated.

Ahh, okay. But, that is the fault of your Parliament, not ACTA itself, correct?
I am not sure how that follows. What you write here is pretty much a straw man argument (and an implied ad hominem towards my character). In any event, I believe in the rule of law. I also believe in harsher punishment for those that break said laws than now exists anyplace outside of China (and perhaps a few other smaller countries).
Who doesn't have them? The artist or the label? It can be read either way. Regardless, it all comes down to what is written on the contract.
If an artist chooses to sign away their rights to a property, so be it. Ignorance is no excuse here, RTFC (like RTFM, just for contracts not manuals :P).
If you mean that the labels doesn't own the rights, I don't see how that matters actually. If a third party wants to defend a person's rights, where is the harm?
EDIT: Reread what I wrote about China, and I had to laugh. I think China probably has the worst piracy problem on the planet (which the government pretty much turns a blind eye to). I was referring more to running over people with tanks, which I think is rather overkill.

Then do us a favor,pull the goddamn consequenses of your desicions and change it instead of being offended.

Which essentially got started because of this :D

You've always been able to.

Since when you're working with living humans?
~~
Regarding ACTA and EU, while European Commission may be all for it, its actual implementation would require Parliament acceptance as well. There are loopholes in EU law which can help bypassing that, but one way or another, it will be a long process.
This whole mess should be monitored and most certainly not forgotten, but it's too early to panic.