Ada Pertanyaan? Hubungi Kami 
2026 Hak Cipta Milik Hukumonline.com
Produk Pilihan
Ada Pertanyaan? Hubungi Kami Robert Sidauruk, Fitri Novia Heriani
Just a few months after being passed by the House of Representatives, Law No. 28 of 2014 on Copyright (Copyright Law) is set to be reviewed at the Constitutional Court. Several business members of the Indonesian Shopping Center Management Association (APPBI) are planning to submit a judicial review petition against the Copyright Law, as they believe it infringes their constitutional rights.
Handaka, APPBI’s Chairman, argues that the criminal charges under Article 114 of the Copyright Law are improper. The Article states that shopping center managers that do not stop illegal works from being sold at their center may be subject to fines of up to IDR 100 million.
Mr. Handaka contends that the management of a shopping center is merely the party who provides premises to businesses with no direct involvement in marketing and selling products to consumers.
“How it is even possible to punish shopping center managers if they are not involved in selling pirated products nor have any knowledge that the products being sold are pirated,” complained Mr. Handaka last Friday.
While supportive of the spirit of the Copyright Law in combating copyright infringement practices, Mr. Handaka believes that shopping center management should not be liable for pirated products on their premises. Moreover, Article 114 of the Copyright Law will create another burden on shopping center managers when enforced at traditional markets.
“How can the head of a traditional market be able to differentiate between original and fake products,” added Mr. Handaka.
As a preliminary step, Mr. Handaka said that he will try to communicate this issue to the government in the hope there will be a government regulation issued to address this issue. If not, then it is likely the APPBI will submit a judicial review petition against the Copyright Law to the Constitutional Court.
Commenting on the issue, Selvie Sinaga, law lecturer at Universitas Katolik Atma Jaya, suggested that shopping center managers coulduse a disclaimer to deny any involvement inpirated products being sold at their premises, as is commonly implemented in Australia. Under this disclaimer, shopping center managers can limit their liability if businesses or consumers choose to buy or sell or pirated products on premises under their management.
“In every photocopy center in Australia the business owner usually posts a disclaimer with information on copyright infringement through illegal duplication. Hence, if the consumer chooses to copy a protected work, they will be liable for all legal consequences that might arise,” said Mrs. Sinaga.
(For more information on Copyright Law see ILB No. 2479 and ILD No. 376)
(hot/kc)
Robert Sidauruk, Fitri Novia Heriani
Just a few months after being passed by the House of Representatives, Law No. 28 of 2014 on Copyright (Copyright Law) is set to be reviewed at the Constitutional Court. Several business members of the Indonesian Shopping Center Management Association (APPBI) are planning to submit a judicial review petition against the Copyright Law, as they believe it infringes their constitutional rights.
Handaka, APPBI’s Chairman, argues that the criminal charges under Article 114 of the Copyright Law are improper. The Article states that shopping center managers that do not stop illegal works from being sold at their center may be subject to fines of up to IDR 100 million.
Mr. Handaka contends that the management of a shopping center is merely the party who provides premises to businesses with no direct involvement in marketing and selling products to consumers.
“How it is even possible to punish shopping center managers if they are not involved in selling pirated products nor have any knowledge that the products being sold are pirated,” complained Mr. Handaka last Friday.
While supportive of the spirit of the Copyright Law in combating copyright infringement practices, Mr. Handaka believes that shopping center management should not be liable for pirated products on their premises. Moreover, Article 114 of the Copyright Law will create another burden on shopping center managers when enforced at traditional markets.
“How can the head of a traditional market be able to differentiate between original and fake products,” added Mr. Handaka.
As a preliminary step, Mr. Handaka said that he will try to communicate this issue to the government in the hope there will be a government regulation issued to address this issue. If not, then it is likely the APPBI will submit a judicial review petition against the Copyright Law to the Constitutional Court.
Commenting on the issue, Selvie Sinaga, law lecturer at Universitas Katolik Atma Jaya, suggested that shopping center managers coulduse a disclaimer to deny any involvement inpirated products being sold at their premises, as is commonly implemented in Australia. Under this disclaimer, shopping center managers can limit their liability if businesses or consumers choose to buy or sell or pirated products on premises under their management.
“In every photocopy center in Australia the business owner usually posts a disclaimer with information on copyright infringement through illegal duplication. Hence, if the consumer chooses to copy a protected work, they will be liable for all legal consequences that might arise,” said Mrs. Sinaga.
(For more information on Copyright Law see ILB No. 2479 and ILD No. 376)
(hot/kc)