No abstract

Act number 28 of 2014 on Copyright regulates that the Copyright as a movable intangible objects can be used as fiduciary transfer of ownership. Provi ABSTRAKUndang Undang nomor 28 tahun 2014 Tentang Hak Cipta mengatur bahwa Hak Cipta sebagai benda bergerak tidak berwujud dapat dijadikan sebagai objek jaminan fidusia. Ketentuan mengenai Hak Cipta sebagai objek jaminan fidusia akan dilaksanakan sesuai dengan ketentuan peraturan perundang-undangan yang berlaku. Akan tetapi pada kenyataannya, hal tersebut masih diperdebatkan oleh berbagai kalangan terkait, terutama mengenai mekanisme penilaian dan pengikatan jaminan, sehingga sampai saat ini belum ada pihak yang memberikan kredit dengan jaminan berupa Hak Cipta. Penelitian ini menggunakan metode yuridis normatif dan bertujuan untuk mempelajari mekanisme penilaian dan pengikatan Hak Cipta sebagai objek jaminan fidusia di Indonesia, dengan membandingkan dengan metode yang dilakukan di negara Common Law.

No abstract

Disruptive innovation such as online transportation business is a leap of innovations of in services that triggered chaos in field of competition law. The emergence of new cumbent with its disruptive innovation has disturbed the market that dominated by the incumbent. This chaos cannot be overcome by the same legal approach because it has a different business model, in fact, it also happened in Indonesia. This study aims to: (a) reviewing whether disruptive innovation infringes the principles and provisions of competition law and; (b) identifying and evaluating various regulations regarding online transportation in Indonesia. The method of this research is normative legal research, which examines various legal principles, legal theories, and legislation. Findings of this study are; First, disruptive innovation is not an unlawful act because it does not infringe any provisions in the competition law. And also, this innovation is not contravene with the public order; its using new business platforms that are different from old business models. Second, Indonesian government has regulated this disruptive innovation by issuing regulation which has been sued for judicial review and amendment. Finally, Indonesian government has formulated an accommodative regulation format, i.e., online transportation is equalized to the specialized rental transportation.

ASEAN has agreed to run a single market through the ASEAN Economic Community (AEC). The consequence of this free flow of goods and services is the emergence of new business competition, new relevant markets and potential contact amongst business actor of ASEAN member and it is possible to create unfair business competition. The implementation of the AEC also has consequences in the field of regulation, specifically the need for harmonization of regulations on competition law in ASEAN member to overcome the problems of cross-border transactions and the absence of competition law in several ASEAN member. This study uses a normative juridical method and aims to examine harmonization of competition law, a research on the transplantability of EU’s law into ASEAN. Results of this research shows that ASEAN can only adopt the European Union's supranationalism system only for cases of violations of cross border competition law, whereas for cases of violations of national competition laws, each country is given sovereignty to apply its own law. This is because the economic characteristics and legal characteristics of business competition vary between ASEAN member countries.