Legal counsels Ignatius Supriyadi (center) and colleagues at the petition revision hearing of the judicial review of Law No. 28 of 2014 on Copyright, Monday (9/11/2023). Photo by Humas MK/Fauzan.

---

JAKARTA (MKRI) — The Constitutional Court (MK) held another judicial review hearing of Law No. 28 of 2014 on Copyright for case No. 84/PUU-XXI/2023 on Monday, September 11, 2023 in the plenary courtroom.

At the on-site hearing presided over by Constitutional Justices Arief Hidayat, Wahiduddin Adams, and Daniel Yusmic P. Foekh, legal counsel Ignatius Supriyadi said that the Petitioners had included PT Aquarius Musikindo’s articles of association, which states that the director is authorized to represent the company if the managing director is unavailable and this does not need any proof to a third party.

“We also added descriptions of the Court’s authority as the guardian of the Constitution and also the sole interpreter of the Constitution, in points 4 and 5,” he explained.

Meanwhile, in arguing their legal standing, the Petitioners had added that they have constitutional right to benefits from art in order to improve their quality of life and welfare as set forth in Article 28C paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution.

“And we have also elaborated in detail the current conditions that have caused the Petitioners to lose their constitutional right to obtain benefits from the pieces of music they have created,” Ignatius added.

For the background of the petition, the Petitioners included the panel’s directions and instructions on Article 28C paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution and explanation of House of Representatives (DPR) meetings discussing the provisions of Articles 10 and 114 of the Copyright Law. The legislature’s intention is to provide protection against widespread piracy in the form of tape cassettes, CDs, or videos sold at malls or digitally.

Also read: Unable to Sue Platform Providers, Aquarius Musikindo Challenges Copyright Law

PT Aquarius Pustaka Musik, PT Aquarius Musikindo, and singer Melly Goeslaw challenge provisions on the prohibition imposed on managers of places of commerce against allowing the sale and/or duplication of goods resulting from infringement of copyright and/or relevant rights at the places they manage in Articles 10 and 114 of Law No. 28 of 2014 on Copyright.

The Petitioners revealed a concrete case in which social media platforms broadcast songs or master recordings belonging to the Petitioners without their permission. However, the Copyright Law has not regulated the accountability of digital service providers, especially ones that have user-generated content (UGC).

The Petitioners sued one of platform providers over the prevalence of contents that violated the Petitioners’ copyright of their songs or masters, but it claimed that based on statutory regulations, platform providers are not liable for contents uploaded by users nor for taking down those contents upon objections by the copyright holders.

The Petitioner believes the Copyright Law has not regulated such things so Articles 10 and 114 of the Copyright Law are the chief harbor of prohibition against any place of commerce allowing services or duplication of contents that infringe on copyrights. However, those articles have not accommodated current phenomena such as UCG-based social media.

As such, in the petitum, the Petitioners request that the Court declare Articles 10 and 114 of the Copyright Law conditionally unconstitutional and not legally binding.

Author       : Utami Argawati
Editor        : Lulu Anjarsari P.
PR            : Tiara Agustina
Translator  : Tahlitha Laela/Yuniar Widiastuti (NL)

Disclaimer: The original version of the news is in Indonesian. In case of any differences between the English and the Indonesian versions, the Indonesian version will prevail.

---