Analisis Pengaturan Prinsip Fair Use Terkait Sarana Kontrol Teknologi Hak Cipta Dalam Undang-Undang Nomor 28 Tahun 2014 Tentang Hak Cipta.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ariesta Tri Utami, Moch.Zairul Alam, S.H, M.H.,Setiawan Wicaksono, S.H., M.Kn Fakultas Hukum, Universitas Brawijaya ariestatriu@gmail.com ABSTRAK Prinsip fair use adalah pembatasan atau perkecualian dimana seseorang dapat menggunakan ciptaan tanpa izin pencipta, dengan alasan tertentu yang diperbolehkan. Sarana kontrol teknologi adalah teknologi, yang digunakan untuk mencegah atau membatasi tindakan yang tidak diizinan oleh pencipta. Permasalahan ini dilatarbelakangi oleh penggunaan sarana kontrol teknologi untuk melindungi ciptaan digital dan bagaimana analisis terkait pengaturan sarana kontrol teknologi apabila dikaitkan dengan prinsip fair use . Berdasarkan latarbelakang tersebut, permasalahan hukum dalam penelitian ini adalah 1) Bagaimana analisis pengaturan prinsip fair use pada pasal 44 ayat (1) Undang-Undang Nomor 28 Tahun 2014 apabila dikaitkan dengan pengaturan sarana kontrol teknologi dalam pasal 52 Undang-Undang Nomor 28 Tahun 2014. 2) Bagaimana pengaturan hukum yang seharusnya terkait sarana kontrol teknologi hak cipta pada Undang-Undang Nomor 28 Tahun 2014. Untuk menjawab permasalahan, penelitian hukum ini menggunakan metode penelitian yang digunakan adalah yuridis normatif. Berdasarkan pembahasan, maka dapat disimpulkan: 1) Berdasarkan analisis penulis, terdapat kekuranglengkapan pengaturan prinsip fair use apabila dikaitkan dengan sarana kontrol teknologi, sehingga perlunya dilakukan revisi terkait pengaturan sarana kontrol teknologi di Indonesia. 2) pengaturan yang seharusnya terkait sarana kontrol teknologi didapatkan melalui perbandingan dengan negara Kanada yang menerapkan prinsip fair use terhadap sarana kontrol teknologi Kata Kunci : Analisis, Pengaturan, Prinsip fair use, Sarana Kontrol Teknologi ABSTRACT Fair use principle is defined as a limitation or exclusion that allows a person to use a creation of another without consent of the creator for an acceptable particular reason. A means of technological control is defined as a technology utilised to avert or restrict any conducts not allowed by the creator. This issue embarks from users of a means of technological control to protect digital work and analysis regarding the regulation of a means of technological control when it is related to the principle of fair use. This research is aimed to study the following research problems: 1) how is the analysis of the regulation of fair use principle in Article 44 Paragraph (1) of Act Number 28 of 2014 when related to the regulation of a means of technological control in Article 52 of Act Number 28 of 2014, 2) how should the technological control over copyright in regards to Act Number 28 of 2014 be regulated? Normative juridical method was employed to answer the problems. The result of this research concludes that there seems to be incomplete regulation of fair use principle when it is related to a means of technological control, and this issue indicates that regulation of the means of technological control in Indonesia needs revising. Moreover, the recommendation of the regulation of the means of technological control is gained by comparing it with that in Canada applying the fair use principle for the means of technological control. Keywords : analysis, regulation, fair use principle, means of technological control
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.029 | 0.006 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".