Don't be offensive and I won't be offended. Your country, as a member of the EU, is just as much to blame for ACTA as any of the other dozen or so countries involved in it, so changing this is not just our responsibility, but you don't see anyone else here, saying "damn Germany, its all your fault".

Hehe, I meant the forum code. It didn't mind it until I tried to edit it, then it blew up. On editing the forums seem to drop some of the quoted lines and moves some of the quote and /quote fields around, which necessarily goofs with the formatting.

And I'll pull the consequenses.
I'll go on the streets and join the protests. Also, I'll tell everyone about the ACTA.

It is without a doubt the fault of the government as they are trying to implement it (without due parliamentary review too). However, if that is the essential nature what is going to be implemented every other nation that agreed to this then it is both a fault with those governments and ACTA. But yes, mostly the government(s).
What you wrote effectively stated that you believe money was all that mattered and rights mean nothing if you can't afford to enforce them. If that's not what you meant to imply then you need to choose your words more carefully.
If you believe in the law above all else (which is somewhat contrary to what you previously wrote) then you should have no problem with it being altered to ensure that it is better enforced than it is currently.
The big four of the music industry: Sony, EMI, Universal, and Warner. They broke their contracts with recording artists (and in other cases never sought permission to use copyrighted material in the first place) and subsequently don't have the rights they use the RIAA to enforce.
What they're defending is illegal. If a corporation has no legal ownership of something then their use of legal muscle to ensure their ability to profit from it is, in most people's eyes, harmful. They're not actually defending the rights of those who have those rights, but rather those who are profiting illegally from them. Something which is not without a minor tsunami of irony.

Yeah, the quote system has been a bit dysfunctional for a while now. Hopefully that is one of the things to be addressed with the forthcoming site update. However, I dislike that quoting method because its so damn hard to read! :p

I believe that laws should be followed, however I also believe it is perfectly fine, and in many cases the best possible solution, for companies to be solely motivated by profit. It is the job of government and regulation to assure they aren't totally corrupt polluters, or the like.
I was responding to you wanted to exempt rights holders from court fees when I wrote 'money makes the world go round'. If they win the case, then the Big Bad Company should pay the legal expenses of both parties, because the BBC would in the wrong. However, I am totally against paying for unsuccessful legal challenges.
Here is where a government agency should get involved then. I am not sure what Canada has, but the US has several agencies and departments devoted to this sort of thing. I am NOT saying the U.S. is perfect here, in fact I think our agencies do a pretty poor job at protecting the little guy. But, I am just one vote in a sea of madness (or it seems that way to me often enough)
Now I understand. We agree fully on this point then.

This is more a matter of them having to fund the case until it has been successful. For many companies this simply isn't an option. Yes, they should have to front the bill for an unsuccessful case, but ideally not from the start. If it was far cheaper to pursue legal action against those who infringe on your rights then that should hit piracy quite hard. Who picks up the bill at the end would depend on who loses.

When it makes me king of the world which in turn lets me rule over all humans i'm all for it.
that and i am helping humans overthrow human governments .
Which means humans fighting humans, which in turn leads to them dieing.
More dead humans= more undead minions for me.

Erm...I love you?

I've been following that (relatively little) information on ACTA for a while now, and from the beginning it's looked truly horrendous, looking to "solve" fairly minor concerns by introducing far more serious concerns. At the moment I'm hoping that the European Parliament puts the kibosh on the thing, seeing as they've already slapped around the European Commission a bit over the massive amount of secrecy surrounding ACTA (the very fact that politicians don't want their constituents to know about this should tell you a lot).
You're starting with the wrong question. What needs to first be asked is just why should piracy be considered a problem to begin with. Copyright exists to serve society by means of promoting the creation of new works which will then fall into the public domain after a certain number of years. Despite this, we've seen the length of copyright balloon in the latter half of the twentieth century, to the point where it can basically be said that copyright holders have completely reneged on their part of the initial copyright bargain. In light of all of this, any discussion needs to start with the question of why society should maintain copyright and enforce any aspect of it. Any supposed issues with copyright infringement need to be looked at from the perspective of how they're detrimental to society as a whole, and any proposed solutions to such issues need their potential benefit weighed against any detriment to society that such solutions carry. Make no mistake, when you're asking for enforcement of copyright you're asking that restrictions be placed upon the bulk of the public, and whenever you ask for such a thing you need to offer a very good reason for why the public should consent to such restrictions.
You know, copyright actually runs counter to capitalism as it's a government-granted monopoly that restricts free trade. I'll wait while you think about that.

Nah, it is ownership of intellectual property, similar to how real-estate is ownership of land; one has a copyright, the other has a deed. One could say, to follow your argument in the preceding paragraph, that ownership of land is a detriment to people because it excludes them from walking where they please. Capitalism cannot exist without the right to ownership, and that is all a copyright is. Without legal private ownership or property (real or intangible), one either has anarchy or some sort of socialism. I find both those options inimical to my personal paradigm.

If I am using land for some purpose others cannot use that land in the same way and manner, same as with all other physical property. The natural limitations of physical resources define the concept of ownership with respect to them. However, most things that fall under copyright do not have these same natural limitations. Once a work is created one can choose to publish or not publish that work, but once one chooses to publish it then anyone else can freely make copies, without taking anything from the original. To quote Jefferson on the matter:
"He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. That ideas should freely spread from one to another over the globe, for the moral and mutual instruction of man, and improvement of his condition, seems to have been peculiarly and benevolently designed by nature, when she made them, like fire, expansible over all space, without lessening their density at any point, and like the air in which we breathe, move, and have our physical being, incapable of confinement or exclusive appropriation."
Ideas and information spread naturally as soon as they are shared; the only control that can naturally be exerted over an "owned" idea or piece of information is whether or not to share it with other people. Everything beyond this is a wholly artificial, a government-granted monopoly, one that may be useful in some cases, but which still runs counter to capitalist principles. It's along the same lines of claiming one owns the exclusive right to sell goods to people in a town.

Capitalism is pretty much the equilibrium of Supply and Demand. If there is no ownership, then there really is no basis for supply and demand. There MUST be haves (owners) and have-nots (buyers) for the system to work. As I posted in my previous answer, which you never addressed:
"Without legal private ownership or property (real or intangible), one either has anarchy or some sort of socialism. I find both those options inimical to my personal paradigm."
If you can show me a way that intellectual property rights can be bought or sold, as physical types of property can be, without the use of copyrights (or something similar), then perhaps I will agree with your way of thinking. But, if in your way of thinking, I should spend months (or years) of my life writing a novel or writing/performing the next hit song, only then to GIVE it away? No, sorry, I will never, ever agree with you. I want compensation for my work, and the first step to that is to actually have legal ownership of the product.

ILU too :D

It is understandable that you are upset. Why you are being a bigot about it is a little harder to fathom. The initial announcement of the negotiations was made jointly by the European Commission, Switzerland, Japan, and the United States. Since then, Australia, Canada, Jordan, Mexico, Morocco, New Zealand, the Republic of Korea, Singapore, and the United Arab Emirates seem to have decided it was a wonderful idea too.
These negotiations are being conducted by trade representatives from these governments. It is unlikely that any of them read this board; even if they do, it seems unlikely that you chose to post here because it seemed like a good way to express your opinion to them. Instead you come here and spit your venom generally at one of the countries involved in these negotiations. How could that country's citizens not feel offended and defensive? Your action basically accuses us individually of nefarious actions toward all free people. In reality, none of us has anything to do with negotiations being carried out for the benefit of multinational corporations.
I'm not suggesting you stop ranting about what appears to be a very bad treaty, but if you're going to use it as an anti-nationalistic bludgeon against random bystanders, don't be surprised if they take exception to being hit.