Core Viewpoint - The resolution of content governance lies not only in responsibility allocation and technical optimization but also in shaping a healthy public opinion ecosystem. Platforms should actively guide the production and dissemination of quality content rather than merely acting as "post-deletion machines" [3][26]. Group 1: Current Governance Challenges - The central internet authority has been conducting "Clear and Bright" actions targeting misinformation from self-media, malicious marketing in short videos, and the misuse of AI technology [4]. - The responsibility boundaries of platforms have become increasingly prominent, with issues such as low violation costs for individual users and the disparity between societal expectations and governance capabilities complicating content review efforts [5][7]. - The responsibility for content review is difficult to ascertain, as platforms face significant challenges in managing vast amounts of user-generated content, which lacks the clear contractual obligations seen in e-commerce [8][9][10]. Group 2: Real-World Dilemmas - The sheer volume of content generated daily makes it nearly impossible for platforms to pre-screen all potentially harmful information, leading to a management gap [13]. - The low cost of individual violations encourages risky behavior among users, as the consequences for them are minimal compared to the significant penalties faced by merchants in e-commerce [14][15]. - There is a mismatch between the high expectations placed on platforms by society and their actual capabilities, leading to a "high responsibility, weak means" paradox [16][18]. Group 3: Path to Resolution - A shift from "single-point accountability" to "layered responsibility" is necessary, distributing accountability among individuals, platforms, and society [22]. - Increasing the cost of individual violations and enhancing traceability through improved user identification and behavior monitoring can help mitigate risks [23]. - Platforms should adopt a proactive approach to governance, focusing on "prevention" rather than "post-incident response" to reduce the spread of harmful content [25]. - The ultimate goal of governance should be to cultivate a healthy public opinion ecosystem, where quality content is promoted and becomes mainstream, rather than merely eliminating violations [26].

Core Viewpoint - The rapid development of social media platforms has led to governance challenges regarding personal information security, platform responsibility, consumer rights, and intellectual property protection [1][2][3] Group 1: Case Statistics and Trends - The number of cases related to social media platforms has been increasing annually, with 458 cases in September-December 2018, 8011 cases in 2019, and 10424 cases in 2020, representing a year-on-year increase of 30.12% [1] - Copyright disputes constitute the highest proportion of social media platform disputes, accounting for 87.71% [1] Group 2: Intellectual Property Protection in New Business Models - New business models in areas such as online gaming, video, digital music, and online education are presenting new challenges for intellectual property protection [2] - A case involving a website operator and an app operator highlighted the issue of unauthorized sharing of premium content, leading to a ruling that the app operator must compensate the website operator 2 million yuan for economic losses [2] Group 3: Legislative Changes and Challenges - The revised Copyright Law effective from June 1 expands the protection scope of audiovisual works, emphasizing rights protection in emerging fields [3] - The application of new technologies like AI, big data, and cloud computing is significantly impacting traditional infringement recognition rules [3] Group 4: Mixed Business Operations and Legal Responsibilities - The traditional "safe harbor" principle is facing challenges due to the evolution of social media platforms into multi-service providers, leading to complex legal responsibilities [4][5] - Platforms are increasingly required to ensure compliance with legal obligations related to content regulation and data security as they diversify their services [4] Group 5: Consumer Rights and Data Protection - Issues with platform format clauses have been identified, where platforms often exempt themselves from liability while increasing consumer responsibility [6] - The court emphasized that platforms must not harm users' rights while exploring new business models, particularly in cases involving subscription services [6] Group 6: Future Directions - The Beijing Internet Court plans to strengthen the protection of fair market competition and address issues like online fraud and identity theft [7] - There is a focus on clarifying the rights attributes, protection scope, and accountability mechanisms for new types of intellectual property in the digital economy [7]

Core Viewpoint - The case highlights the intersection of AI technology and copyright law, focusing on the unauthorized use of original video content by a company using AI face-swapping technology, raising questions about originality and copyright infringement [2][4][6]. Group 1: Case Background - A photographer discovered that her original videos were used in an AI face-swapping app called "某颜" without her permission, leading her to file a lawsuit for copyright infringement [1][2]. - The app, developed by a company, utilized AI algorithms to create face-swapped videos, which included many elements identical to the photographer's original works [2][3]. Group 2: Legal Considerations - The court recognized the photographer's original videos as protected works under copyright law due to their originality in content arrangement, camera angles, and other creative aspects [3][4]. - The defendant argued that the AI-generated videos were sufficiently different from the originals, but the court maintained that the core elements of the original works remained intact, constituting substantial similarity [3][6]. Group 3: Copyright and Commercial Use - The case raised complex legal questions regarding the commercial use of AI-generated content and the responsibilities of platforms in such scenarios [4][5]. - The company was found to have violated copyright laws by using the original works for profit without proper authorization, thus breaching the rights of the original creator [5][6]. Group 4: Platform Liability - The company attempted to invoke the "safe harbor" principle, claiming limited liability as a platform provider, but the court ruled that they failed to exercise reasonable care in monitoring the content [8][9]. - The court emphasized that platforms cannot ignore obvious copyright infringements and must take appropriate actions when notified [8][9]. Group 5: Industry Implications - The case serves as a cautionary tale for small tech companies about the importance of understanding copyright laws and the potential legal ramifications of using AI technologies [9][10]. - The court suggested that the company enhance its compliance awareness and improve its content review processes to avoid future legal issues [9][10].