"China shall provide that e-commerce platforms may have their operating licenses revoked for repeated failures to curb the sale of counterfeit or pirated goods. "
Key word is may, no mention of it being required. In addition, this is only revoking their license to operate in China. This does not seem to impact Chinese sellers ability to sell on Amazon US (although other provisions "may" attempt to tackle that issue).
Another very interesting tidbit in article 1.29
"(a) provide for a legal presumption that, in the absence of proof to the contrary, the person whose name is indicated as the author, producer, performer, or publisher of the work, performance, or phonogram in the usual manner is the designated right holder in such work, performance, or phonogram and that the copyright or related right subsists in such subject matter;
(b) when the presumption in subparagraph ( a) holds, waive requirements to present copyright or related rights transfer agreements or other documentation in order to establish ownership, licensing, or infringement of copyright or related rights, in the absence of rebuttal evidence presented by the accused infringer; and(c) provide that the accused infringer has the burden of production of evidence or burden of proof, as appropriate, to demonstrate that its use of a work protected by copyright or related rights is authorized, including in a case where the accused infringer claims to have obtained permission to use the work, such as through a license, from the right holder. "
Two key facts that you can draw from this:
1) "Purported" copyright owners are not required to provide evidence in any civil, administrative, or criminal proceeding involving copyright.
2) The burden of proof is on the accused as specifically stated in section b.
In addition:
"The United States affirms that existing U.S. measures afford treatment equivalent to that provided for in this Article. "
It seems to me this kind of draconian standard is being applied to both the US and China and seems to highly favor big copyright owners (like usual).
Also, article 1.5
"The Parties shall provide that the burden of production of evidence or burden of proof, as appropriate, shifts to the accused party in a civil judicial proceeding for trade secret misappropriation where the holder of a trade secret has produced prima facie evidence, including circumstantial evidence, of a reasonable indication of trade secret misappropriation by the accused party. "
For those unaware, prima facie means "accepted as correct until proven otherwise". Yeah....
There is also a provision for suspending portions of the agreement if one party does not feel that the other party is not meeting their obligations. In other words, it's a great way to piss the other side off arbitrarily and very Trump like. Of course, trade agreements are built off Trust and enforcement is always voluntarily. To me, something like this says either side does not really trust the other.
In addition, China is only agreeing to make purchases for 2 years. Essentially, that's the period the trade war has gone on already. Not to mention, tariffs will stay in place, so elevated prices are here to stay.
In the end this is a win for big companies, a big maybe for farmers if China voluntarily commits long term, and a loss for the average American as the tariffs are staying in place. China has only committed to buying 12.5 billion worth of farm products in the first year, less then half the bailout amount farmers were given. I especially don't like that the US has committed to selling China rare earth metals used for advanced electronics and military weapons. We don't have a lot of it to begin with, selling it could put the US defense industry in a pinch and thus national defense in general.
