Perlindungan Hukum Hak Cipta Atas Penggandaan Buku Secara Illegal Melalui Fotokopi
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Undang-Undang Nomor 28 Tahun 2014 tentang Hak Cipta, sebagai UUHC 2014 baru lebih menekankan kepada Pencipta itu sendiri terutama perlindungan hukum yang lebih lama dibandingkan dengan Undang-Undang Hak Cipta sebelumnya. Pencipta diberikan hak ekonomi berupa hak untuk mengumumkan (performing rights) dan hak untuk memperbanyak (mechanical rights). Tujuan dari penelitian hukum ini yakni Untuk mengetahui dan menganalisis implementasi Undang-Undang Nomor 28 Tahun 2014 tentang Hak Cipta terhadap penggandaan buku dengan cara Fotokopi dan Untuk mengetahui dan menganalisis upaya Pemerintah dalam memberikan perlindungan hukum yang ideal dan berkeadilan terhadap penggandaan buku secara illegal. Penelitian ini menggunakan metode penelitian yuridis normatif. Hasil pembahasan dapat diuraikan di atas, maka dikemukakan kesimpulan yakni Implementasi Undang-Undang Nomor 28 Tahun 2014 tentang Hak Cipta terhadap penggandaan buku dengan cara Fotokopi untuk mencegah terjadinya pelanggaran hak cipta dengan dilakukannya sosialisasi mengenai Undang-undang Hak Cipta yang dilakukan Direktorat Jendral Hak Kekayaan Intelektual dan Kantor Wilayah Kementrian Hukum dan HAM tiap Provinsi dan daerah-daerah tertentu.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.073 | 0.012 |
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".