（来源：中国知识产权报） AI"课代表" 帮你划重点 AI浏览器通过整合服务成为互联网新入口，既降低内容创作门槛，又深层次推动版权产业与互联网产 业融合。 "相同文件合并存储"技术虽提升传播效率，但间接导致大规模侵权和反复侵权等著作权侵权问题加重。 需依托行政治理、司法治理与私人治理协同应对重复侵权问题。 以上内容由AI生成，仅供参考 在大数据的帮助下，人工智能（AI）与互联网技术已经深度结合并形成良性互动。互联网产业在经过 算法推荐技术全面改变内容传播模式后，再次迎来了新的技术升级。AI浏览器通过整合传统与新兴服 务类型，正在成为互联网的新入口，其一方面使得内容生产从被动检索转向主动生成，显著降低了创作 门槛，另一方面利用算法全面支持终端和云端同步，更深层次推动了版权产业与互联网产业的融合。 服务创新带来新挑战 新型浏览器对用户传播效率的显著提升，体现在以"相同文件合并存储"技术为基础的"秒传"和"离线下 载"服务。前者是指当用户拟存储的内容与云端已存内容相同时，就不再进行重复上传和存储，而是直 接向用户提供文件访问权限；后者是指用户将第三方网站上目标文件的下载任务提交至网盘服务器，由 网盘服务器完成下载并 ...

Core Viewpoint - The article discusses the ongoing debate in Europe regarding the potential withdrawal of the EU's ambitious green agenda, particularly the ban on the sale of new internal combustion engine vehicles starting in 2035, which has implications for both traditional and electric vehicle manufacturers [4][5][6]. Group 1: Industry Challenges and Opportunities - European automakers are struggling to transition to zero-emission driving but may receive a reprieve from stringent regulations, which could impact the future direction of the transportation sector [5][6]. - The proposed delay in the ban is a result of lobbying from major companies like Stellantis and Mercedes-Benz, aiming to avoid potential fines exceeding €1 billion (approximately $1.2 billion) in the coming years [5][11]. - The automotive industry, contributing about €1 trillion (approximately $1.2 trillion) to the economy, may welcome this flexibility, but it risks slowing technological advancement and widening the gap with competitors like Tesla and Chinese manufacturers [5][6]. Group 2: Political and Regulatory Dynamics - Six EU leaders, including Italy's Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni, have called for a relaxation of vehicle emission rules to prevent the effective ban on internal combustion engines in the mid-2030s [8][10]. - The letter to the EU Commission emphasizes the need for a balanced approach to climate goals without compromising competitiveness, highlighting the importance of technological neutrality [10][11]. - The review of current regulations has been expedited due to slower-than-expected electric vehicle adoption, with an announcement expected soon [10][11]. Group 3: Market Trends and Consumer Preferences - Data from the European Automobile Manufacturers Association (ACEA) indicates that from January to October 2025, electric vehicles accounted for 16.4% of the EU market, up from 13.2% in the same period of 2024 [18]. - Hybrid vehicles remain the preferred choice for EU consumers, with a registration share of 34.6%, while plug-in hybrids accounted for 9.1%, an increase from 7% year-on-year [18]. - The combined market share of gasoline and diesel vehicles has decreased to 36.6%, down from 46.3% in 2024, indicating a shift in consumer preferences [18]. Group 4: Industry Perspectives on Policy Changes - Executives from companies like Volvo and Lucid Motors express concerns that delaying the transition to electric vehicles could undermine industry confidence and increase costs in achieving climate goals [12][19]. - The commitment to the 2035 target is seen as crucial for maintaining investor confidence and ensuring that substantial investments in infrastructure and technology are not jeopardized [18][19]. - The debate over extending the lifespan of fossil fuel-based vehicles is viewed as detrimental to long-term industry efficiency and innovation [19].

Core Viewpoint - The evolution of the crime of illegal business operations reflects the complexity of economic and social development, transforming from a specific economic regulatory tool into a "catch-all" crime in market economic activities, posing unprecedented challenges for criminal defense [1]. Summary by Sections Legislative Evolution and Normative Structure - The regulatory framework of illegal business operations has evolved from specific to abstract, initially defined in 1997 with three specific scenarios, including unauthorized operation of exclusive goods and serious disruption of market order. This design reflected a clear delineation of economic regulation at that time [2]. - The scope of application has expanded through amendments and judicial interpretations, now encompassing over ten specific types, including illegal payment settlement and telecommunications operations, alongside a catch-all clause for "other serious disruptions to market order" [2]. - The crime's constitutive elements include three key factors: violation of national regulations, engagement in illegal business activities, and severity of circumstances, providing multiple layers of operational space for defense [2]. Typological Analysis: Main Behavior Patterns and Defense Points 1. **Unauthorized Operation of Specific Business Types** - Cases involve sectors like finance and telecommunications, with defense focusing on the scope and validity of administrative licenses. For instance, in illegal payment settlement cases, it is crucial to distinguish between mere fund transfers and professional payment services [3]. - In the publishing sector, the defense should differentiate between content legality and procedural legality, arguing that minor procedural flaws do not warrant criminal penalties [3]. 2. **Use of Prohibited Business Methods** - This category includes behaviors like cashing out via POS machines and pyramid schemes. The defense should accurately determine the nature of the actions and assess the social harm of the methods used [4]. - In credit card cash-out cases, distinguishing between legitimate promotions and illegal cash-outs is essential, while in pyramid scheme cases, the focus should be on the legitimacy of the profit sources [4]. 3. **Application of Other Catch-All Clauses** - For cases invoking the catch-all clause, a cautious approach is necessary, emphasizing the need to assess whether the actions reach a level of social harm comparable to explicitly defined types [5]. Multi-layered Defense Strategies 1. **Legality Level Defense** - Defense should scrutinize the "national regulations" cited in accusations, as only laws and administrative regulations can serve as bases for criminal liability, excluding departmental or local regulations [6]. - It is vital to check if the national regulations explicitly set criminal liability; if only administrative responsibility is mentioned, the principle of "no crime without a clear law" should be invoked [6]. 2. **Business Behavior Level Defense** - The core issue is distinguishing between "unlicensed operation" and "exceeding operational scope," requiring a review of business licenses and administrative permits [7]. - For technical service cases, the defense should argue the legitimate uses of the technology provided, demonstrating that the individual did not specifically support illegal activities [7]. 3. **Subjective Intent Level Defense** - The recognition of subjective intent is crucial, with defense focusing on the individual's professional background and understanding of the legality of their actions [8]. - In cases of joint crime, it is important to differentiate the subjective awareness of each participant, particularly those providing ancillary services [8]. 4. **Circumstantial Recognition Level Defense** - The determination of severity directly impacts the distinction between crime and non-crime, necessitating a detailed examination of quantitative indicators like business revenue and illegal gains [9]. - The defense should also evaluate the social harm of the actions, especially in emerging industries, to argue that exploratory mistakes in business development should not be criminalized [9]. Evidence Examination: Key Strategies - Evidence examination is a critical defense stage, focusing on the completeness of financial materials and the appropriateness of auditing methods [10]. - For electronic evidence, the legality of its extraction and the integrity of the data chain must be scrutinized, as it often plays a key role in determining business models and amounts [10]. - The analysis of testimonial evidence should identify contradictions and doubts to construct a favorable narrative for the defendant [10]. Policy Understanding: Application of Criminal Policy in Defense - Understanding the impact of criminal policy on the application of illegal business operations is essential, particularly in cases involving private enterprises [11]. - The defense should leverage policies encouraging innovation to argue for caution in criminal intervention, presenting industry analysis and expert opinions to highlight the unique nature of the business [11]. - Attention should be paid to established judicial practices and precedents that can support the defense's arguments, especially in contentious areas like the application of catch-all clauses [11]. Conclusion: Balancing Order and Innovation - The defense of illegal business operations fundamentally seeks to balance the maintenance of economic order with the development of market innovation, requiring a deep understanding of social and economic trends [17]. - Successful defense strategies must adhere to the principle of legality while limiting the expansion of catch-all clauses, ensuring that criminal prosecutions do not become overly broad [17]. - Through a typological analysis and refined defense strategies, each case can find the most suitable defense path, achieving a balance between individual justice and legal integrity [17].

Core Viewpoint - The emergence of "universal remote controls" for gate barriers raises concerns about security and legality, as these devices can potentially bypass access control systems, leading to unauthorized entry into residential areas and other secured locations [1][3]. Group 1: Product Overview - "Universal remote controls," also known as "gate-lifting devices," can replicate signals to control various access points, including residential gates and parking barriers [1][3]. - These devices are sold online at prices ranging from a few yuan to over a hundred yuan, with some listings indicating high sales volumes and user comments suggesting their use for unauthorized access [3]. Group 2: Functionality and Limitations - Testing revealed that these remotes are not truly "universal" as they require on-site signal copying and can only operate on specific frequency bands, making them ineffective against more advanced systems like license plate recognition [3][4]. Group 3: Legal Implications - The legality of producing and selling these remotes hinges on the "technological neutrality" principle; if designed to bypass security systems, they may violate laws [4][5]. - Producers face legal risks related to intellectual property infringement and liability for damages caused by unauthorized access facilitated by their products [5][6]. Group 4: Responsibilities of E-commerce Platforms - E-commerce platforms are legally obligated to monitor and take action against the sale of products that may endanger public safety, and cannot evade responsibility by claiming to be mere intermediaries [5][6]. - Disclaimers from sellers claiming that their products are intended for legitimate use do not absolve them of liability if the products are inherently illegal [5][6]. Group 5: Recommendations for Stakeholders - Manufacturers should enhance legal awareness and refrain from producing devices with illegal functionalities, while sellers must verify the legitimacy of their products [6]. - E-commerce platforms should actively enforce regulations to prevent the sale of such devices, and technology providers should improve security measures to prevent signal replication [6].

Core Viewpoint - The article discusses the emergence and implications of "universal remote controls" that can bypass security systems in residential areas, raising concerns about security and legality [1][2][4]. Group 1: Product Description and Functionality - The "universal remote control" can replicate signals to control various access points like gates and doors, allowing unauthorized access to restricted areas [1][2]. - These remotes are sold online at prices ranging from a few yuan to hundreds, with some listings indicating high sales volumes and user comments suggesting their use for bypassing security [1][2]. Group 2: Legal and Ethical Concerns - The legality of producing and selling these remotes is questioned, particularly if their design is intended to circumvent security measures, which could violate intellectual property laws [2][3]. - Sellers and e-commerce platforms may face legal responsibilities if they knowingly sell products that compromise safety or violate consumer rights [3][4]. Group 3: Recommendations and Responsibilities - Producers should enhance legal awareness and refrain from selling products with illegal functionalities, while sellers must verify the legitimacy of their products and cannot rely solely on disclaimers for protection [4]. - E-commerce platforms are urged to fulfill their regulatory obligations by monitoring and removing illegal products from their listings [4].

Core Viewpoint - The Australian Automotive Service and Repair Regulatory Authority (AASRA) has issued compliance warnings to five Chinese car manufacturers, including BYD and Xpeng, for allegedly violating the Motor Vehicle Service and Repair Information Scheme (MVIS), which could result in fines of up to AUD 10 million (approximately CNY 47 million) for each company [1][2] Group 1: Compliance Issues - The AASRA's compliance review report identifies three types of violations by the Chinese car manufacturers: delays in diagnostic software updates, incomplete disclosure of key technical parameters, and subscription service pricing above industry benchmarks [2] - The MVIS mandates that car manufacturers upload complete diagnostic systems, technical parameters, and repair manuals to the AASRA platform on the first day of a model's launch, along with flexible subscription options [2] Group 2: Global Regulatory Trends - There is a global trend towards mandatory disclosure of repair data, with the EU and several U.S. states implementing regulations to ensure fair competition in the automotive repair market [3] - The systemic costs of repair monopolies have prompted regulators worldwide to shift from reactive measures to proactively building a fair competitive ecosystem [3] Group 3: Economic Impact of Repair Monopolies - Repair monopolies lead to increased lifecycle costs for vehicles, suppressing consumer spending potential and hindering innovation in the repair industry [3] - Data from the EU and the U.S. indicates that after mandatory disclosure of repair information, repair costs typically decrease by 15% to 30%, and consumer satisfaction improves by approximately 25% to 40% [4] Group 4: Challenges for Chinese Car Manufacturers - The compliance crisis faced by Chinese car manufacturers abroad highlights the clash between domestic business models and international regulatory frameworks [5] - The profit structure of Chinese car manufacturers heavily relies on after-sales services, which account for 54% of their gross profit, making them resistant to data openness [6] Group 5: Transition from Product to Ecosystem Output - The controversy over repair data openness underscores the urgent need for Chinese car manufacturers to transition from a "product output" model to an "ecosystem output" model, as global competition evolves [8] - The Australian regulatory actions serve as a strategic warning for Chinese car manufacturers, emphasizing the need for transparency and user rights protection in after-sales services [9]