Some things from a quick scan:

27.1 - ISPs must provide tools/procedures to block infringing users:

It does say, right next to it, that this should preserve fundamental principles such as freedom of expression, fair process, and privacy. But then again, it says in a footnote while preserving the legitimate interests of right holder. Protect freedom, except when you don't.

27.4 - No anonimity on the web:

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

27.5 - makes breaking DRM, sharing software that circumvents it, sharing files etc., a crime:

Each Party shall provide adequate legal protection and effective legal remedies against the
circumvention of effective technological measures

the offering to the public by marketing of a device or product, including computer
programs, or a service, as a means of circumventing an effective technological measure

to remove or alter any electronic rights management information / to distribute, import for distribution, broadcast, communicate, or make available to the public
copies of works, performances, or phonograms, knowing that electronic rights management
information has been removed or altered without authority

--------

Now, most of that sounds reasonable. But it becomes more worrying as you link all to these:

4.2 - Your information can be used by other countries/companies for other purposes (with prior consent from the government - haha):

the Party receiving the information shall (...) refrain from disclosing or
using the information for a purpose other than that for which the information was provided, --except
with the prior consent of the Party providing the information--

8.1 - businesses can be ordered to take action against infringement - that means VISA/PayPal cancelling/blocking your accounts, your ISP severing your connection, your hosting shutting down your website, DNS blocking, etc etc.

its judicial authorities have the authority to issue (...) an order to a third
party (...) to prevent goods that involve the infringement of an intellectual property

9.3 - makes it written law that every pirated/counterfeit good equates to a lost sale by the IP owner. that's a very wrong assumption:

the quantity of the goods (...) multiplied by the amount of profit per
unit of goods which would have been sold

10.1 - a company can order that your infringing material be destroyed:

at the --right holder's request--, its judicial authorities
have the authority to order that such infringing goods be destroyed

And most important:

Each Party shall provide that its judicial authorities have the authority to order prompt and
effective provisional* measures*

each Party shall provide its judicial
authorities with the authority to act expeditiously on requests for provisional measures and to make
a decision without undue delay

And to finish if off, your data can be shared between all signing countries (article 34).

That means they can do all of the above before you even know what's going on.

I don't know much about this subject (apart from taking some WIPO classes), but I wouldn't be comfortable giving this kind of power to half the world's governments. They will be sharing your online usage data as much as they want, and can take "provisional" action without due course. There are legal system already in place to deal with counterfeit products. You can argue that it prevents one of the signed countries becoming a pirate haven, but what's the chance of that?