This paper introduces the case of Beijing Quanjing Vision Network Technology Limited Company v. Chengdu Daily for infringing the right to disseminate works information on the Internet, and discusses the disputes over the identification of electronic evidence in this case. The advantages and obstacles of court evidence preservation, notary office evidence preservation, and third-party institution evidence preservation are analyzed. It is found that the real-time preservation that is implemented by qualified institutions is essential to guarantee the authenticity of the creation, transmission, and storage of electronic evidence. Then, the superiority of archives service organization participating in electronic evidence preservation is concluded from the aspects of probative force, professional experience, qualification and efficiency. The model of electronic evidence preservation is proposed, which consists of whole-course management of archival service institutions, supervision and evaluation of archival administrative departments and industry association, and cooperation of notarization, appraisal and judicial institutions. To facilitate the realization of this model, some suggestions are put forward: conducting real-time preservation and whole processing management to meet the judicial needs, promoting the industry standardization of archives service outsourcing, develop cooperation with notarization and identification institutions. This model provides references for the service expansion of commercial records center.