SANG SUPERSTAR YANG SADAR HKI: A TRIBUTE TO JACKO

Michael Jackson, the King of Pop, meninggal dunia pada hari hari Kamis (25/6) yang lalu di Los Angeles, California, pada usia 50 tahun. Seolah merefleksikan beragam kontroversi yang mengisi perjalanan hidupnya sejak masih menjadi bintang cilik bersama Jackson 5 hingga menjadi penyanyi pop pencetak album terlaris sepanjang masa, kematian Jacko pun masih mengundang kontroversi khususnya terkait dengan penyebabnya, meskipin sampai saat ini masih diyakini bahwa ia meninggal karena serangan jantung.

Terlepas dari segala kontroversi yang timbul dari kehidupannya yang eksentrik, Michael Jackson juga akan tetap dikenang dan dihormati orang karena kontribusi yang ia hasilkan untuk dunia, khususnya di bidang musik dan industri hiburan, semasa hidupnya. Ia telah merevolusi banyak hal: mulai dari musik pop itu sendiri; sinergi antara musik, trik-trik serta koreografi dalam aksi panggung; penggunaan video musik sebagai sarana promosi sekaligus media ekspresi yang orisinil; dan termasuk juga penghargaan masyarakat dan khususnya media terhadap seniman-seniman kulit berwarna di Amerika Serikat.

Anda mungkin bertanya-tanya, ada kaitan apa Michael Jackson dengan hak kekayaan intelektual sehingga saya memuat bahasan tentang dirinya dalam catatan HKI saya kali ini? Kalau jawabannya hanya sekedar karena Michael Jackson adalah pencipta lagu yang sangat sukses, sepertinya saya terlalu memaksakan diri untuk ikut-ikutan bicara soal Jacko di sini.

Oke, kalau Anda sudah tidak terlalu neq lagi dengan segala pemberitaan hingar-bingar soal kematian sang superstar yang menjejali kita dalam beberapa waktu terakhir ini, Anda akan saya ajak untuk berbagi sesuatu tentang Jacko dan Hak Kekayaan Intelektual…

***

Tahukah Anda bahwa selain menjadi musisi yang ikut menciptakan banyak lagu, Jacko juga terjun dalam bisnis music publishing company ?

Bagi anda yang belum familiar dengan bisnis ini, music publishing company pada prinsipnya adalah suatu perusahaan yang memiliki katalog musik berisi sejumlah lagu sekaligus memegang Hak Cipta atas lagu-lagu tersebut, sehingga dengan demikian perusahaan itu memiliki kontrol penuh atas penjualan, pemutaran serta penggunaan serta bentuk komersialisasi lainnya atas lagu-lagu dalam katalognya tersebut.

Dengan nilai yang berbeda-beda tergantung pada perjanjiannya masing-masing, pendapatan yang diterima oleh music publishing company dari hasil pemanfaatan secara komersial setiap lagu dalam katalognya akan dibagi dengan pencipta dari lagu tersebut sebagai royalti.

Dengan cara ini, pencipta lagu tidak perlu bersusah-payah kesana-kemari untuk mengontrol lagu-lagu ciptaannya dipergunakan oleh siapa dan dimana sehingga ia bisa memperoleh manfaat ekonomi dari Hak Ciptanya, namun cukup menyerahkan pengelolaan tersebut kepada music publishing company dan tinggal menerima hasil prosentase pembagian yang umumnya adalah sebesar 50% dari pendapatan yang diperoleh setiap lagu.

Nah, bisnis yang memegang peran sangat vital dalam Hak Cipta musik inilah yang diterjuni oleh Michael Jackson, yang inspirasinya ia dapatkan dari salah satu legenda di dunia musik lainnya – Paul McCartney dari The Beatles, dengan siapa ia berkolaborasi di awal tahun 80-an menghasilkan lagu-lagu hits seperti The Girl is Mine dan Say, Say, Say.

Pada tahun 1985 Michael Jackson membeli sebuah music publishing company bernama ATV Music Publishing senilai 47,5 juta dolar dengan katalog yang meliputi ribuan lagu termasuk hampir semua lagu-lagu The Beatles. Bayangkan saja, hitung-hitungan saat itu satu lagu “Yesterday” bisa menghasilkan sekitar 100,000 dolar setahun. Dikurangi royalti untuk pencipta lagu yang diberikan kepada Paul McCartney dan Yoko Ono sebagai janda/ahli waris John Lennon, Jacko masih bisa mengantongi 50,000 dolar hanya dari satu lagu itu saja, belum memperhitungkan ratusan lagu laris khusus dari katalog lagu-lagu the Beatles semata.

Bisnis ini memang sangat menguntungkan dan menggiurkan. Tak mengherankan kalau 15 tahun kemudian di tahun 1995 perusahaan Jepang Sony menawar 90 juta dolar untuk membeli 50 prosen saham Jacko di ATV Music Publishing, yang langsung diterima oleh Jacko dengan senang hati, “it don’t matter if you’re black or Japanese,” katanya. Apalagi Jacko mengecualikan hak atas seluruh lagu-lagunya sendiri dari transaksi tersebut, dan nama perusahaan itu pun berubah menjadi Sony/ATV Music Publishing.

Selanjutnya adalah sejarah. Tahun 2001 mereka mengakuisisi katalog milik Baby Mae berisi sekitar 600 lagu, berlanjut dengan akuisisi Acuff-Rose senilai 157 juta dolar dengan katalog berisi lebih dari 55,000 lagu. Terakhir, tahun 2007 Sony/ATV mengakuisisi Famous Music senilai 370 juta dolar dengan katalog berisi 125,000 lagu dimana di dalamnya terdapat lagu-lagu seperti “Moon River“, “Footloose“, serta sejumlah hits dari Shakira, Beck, Bjork dan juga Eminem termasuk “The Real Slim Shady” dan “Without Me“. Sebuah ironi karena di video musik untuk “Without Me“, Eminem justru memparodikan Michael Jackson…

Di tahun 2002, saham Jacko di Sony/ATV yang berjumlah 50 persen diperkirakan bernilai 540 juta dolar. Lagu-lagu yang ada di katalog Sony/ATV diperkirakan menghasilkan hingga 80 juta dolar setiap tahunnya, dimana lagu-lagu hits milik The Beatles sendiri mampu menghasilkan sekitar 30 hingga 45 juta dolar di antaranya.

***

Satu lagi hubungan menarik antara mendiang Michael Jackson dengan HKI yang tidak banyak diketahui orang adalah: Michael Jackson adalah seorang inventor sekaligus pemilik hak dari salah-satu Paten yang terdaftar di United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)…!

Paten bernomor US 5,255,452 yang diberi tahun 1993 tersebut adalah untuk invensi berjudul Method and Means for Creating Anti-Gravity Illusion. Kalau Anda bertanya-tanya “ilusi” macam apa yang hendak dilakukan oleh Jacko dengan invensi tersebut, jawabannya alat yang dipatenkan ini sebenarnya semacam sepatu yang dirancang dengan sedemikian rupa dan berpasangan dengan semacam kait yang diletakkan pada lantai sehingga saat sepatu dan lantai saling terkait dapat membuat tubuh si pemakai condong ke depan dengan sudut kemiringan yang cukup ekstrim namun tanpa kehilangan keseimbangan.

Jacko bersama-sama dengan timnya menciptakan alat ini untuk keperluan koreografi panggung yang ia rencanakan untuk penampilan live lagu “Smooth Criminal” menyesuaikan dengan atraksi serupa di videoklip lagu itu sebelumnya. Hanya saja tidak mungkin alat bantu berupa kabel yang dipakai di videoklip dipakai juga pada aksi panggung karena selain ribet juga akan terlihat jelas sehingga mengurangi unsur surprise dari atraksi tersebut, sehingga sebuat alat khusus pun mesti dirancang.

Saya tidak tahu pasti apa motivasi Jacko mematenkan alat ini karena tampaknya sepatu panggung tersebut tidak pernah secara langsung dikomersialkan dengan diproduksi masal dan dijual. Namun setidaknya dengan sepatu ini dipatenkan, para penampil lain yang ingin mengimitasi aksi panggung Jacko akan berpikir dua kali kalau harus menggunakan alat alat bantu yang sudah dipatenkan terlebih dahulu kalau tidak mau mendapatkan thriller dari Jacko berupa gugatan pelanggaran paten!

***

Itulah Michael Jackson, sang superstar kita yang sadar HKI, dan yang saat ini telah pergi mendahului kita.

Selamat jalan Jacko!

***

HAK CIPTA MUSIK: GIGI DAN PARA PEMBAJAK NAKAL…

Sebuah artikel mengenai pembajakan Hak Cipta ditulis oleh kelompok musik GIGI dan dimuat di Harian Kompas edisi hari Kamis kemarin (25/6) tentang maraknya pembajakan hak cipta karya-karya musik di Indonesia. Tulisan tersebut menarik bagi saya karena membahas soal pembajakan dari sudut pandang sebuah kelompok pekerja seni di bidang musik yang cukup produktif dalam berkarya, dimana mereka tentunya merasakan benar bagaimana besar dampak pembajakan bagi industri tempat mereka berjuang mengasapi dapur mereka sehari-hari.

Dalam tulisan blog kali ini, saya akan memuat beberapa catatan yang saya dapat dari artikel tersebut.

***

Mengamini pendapat GIGI, sebenarnya kita sudah memiliki UU yang mengatur mengenai perlindungan Hak Cipta, UU no. 19 tahun 2003 tentang Hak Cipta dengan cukup kuat. Lingkup perlindungan sudah diperluas, mekanisme penyelesaian sengketa diperingkas dan ancaman sanksi pun sudah diperberat dibandingkan dengan sederet UU Hak Cipta yang kita miliki sebelum-sebelumnya.

Toh Undang-Undang yang sudah cukup kuat itupun tetap tidak mampu mencegah pelanggaran hak cipta semakin merajalela. Di pusat-pusat perbelanjaan mulai dari kelas kaki lima hingga kelas atas masih saja bisa kita menemukan toko-toko yang dengan bebas merdeka menjual keping-keping CD/DVD berisi musik, film atau program komputer bajakan.

Dalam artikel di Kompas tadi GIGI menyampaikan tentang kurangnya political will pemerintah untuk menegakkan UU Hak Cipta yang mereka buat sendiri dengan lebih serius, yang diduga menjadi salah-satu faktor terus merajalelanya pembajakan bahkan di depan mata para aparat itu sendiri. Dengan adanya political will yang lebih kuat, diharapkan aparat penegak hukum kita bisa lebih pro-aktif dalam menindak dan memberantas pembajakan, apalagi mengingat UU Hak Cipta kita sekarang menempatkan tindak pidana pelanggaran Hak Cipta sebagai delik biasa dan bukan lagi merupakan delik aduan.

GIGI lalu membuat perbandingan tentang keseriusan aparat dalam memberantas pembajakan dengan menyitir sebuah perkara yang belum lama diputus oleh Pengadilan Federal di negara bagian Minnesota, Amerika Serikat, dimana seorang ibu rumah-tangga berusia 32 tahun bernama Jammie Thomas-Rasset dinyatakan bersalah melanggar Hak Cipta 24 buah lagu yang disediakannya secara ilegal di sebuah situs file-sharing, dimana atas kesalahannya tersebut si nyonya muda tadi harus membayar sebesar 1,9 juta dolar.

Kasus ini sendiri memang cukup menghebohkan dan kontroversial, karena baru untuk pertama-kalinya aktivitas file-sharing di internet sampai disidangkan di pengadilan di Amerika Serikat karena melanggar Hak Cipta. Namun meski kasus ini dari sudut pandang tertentu dapat dilihat sebagai bukti ketegasan pengadilan di Amerika Serikat dalam memutus mengenai pelanggaran Hak Cipta, namun kasus ini tidak dapat dipergunakan sebagai acuan untuk membandingkan keseriusan aparat hukum seperti polisi maupun kejaksaan dalam memerangi pembajakan.

Alasannya sederhana: kasus ini adalah kasus perdata, bukan pidana. Rasset dihadapkan ke pengadilan bukan karena ditangkap oleh aparat kepolisian ataupun dituntut oleh kejaksaan gara-gara ulahnya menyediakan file-file lagu digital di jaringan internet. Ia digugat oleh RIAA (Recording Industry Association of America), yang bertindak demi kepentingan empat perusahaan rekaman terbesar di Amerika Serikat: Warner Music, Universal Music, EMI dan Sony Music.

RIAA menuduh Rasset telah menyediakan 1,700 lagu secara ilegal ke situs internet file-sharing Kazaa sebelum situs tersebut menjadi penyedia jasa langganan musik yang legal (juga atas hasil desakan dan upaya hukum industri rekaman). 24 lagu kemudian dipilih untuk proses pembuktian di pengadilan, dimana seluruhnya terbukti telah disediakan oleh Rasset secara ilegal dan membuatnya harus membayar ganti-kerugian (damage – bukan denda) sekitar 80 ribu dolar per lagu.

Kalau kita bicara dalam konteks hukum Hak Cipta, apa yang dilakukan oleh Rasset memang merupakan salah-satu bentuk pelanggaran Hak Cipta. Saat Rasset menghubungkan komputernya ke sebuah situs file-sharing sehingga memungkinkan seluruh lagu yang tersimpan dalam bentuk digital di komputer tersebut diunduh oleh semua pengguna yang juga tersambung dengan situs file-sharing yang sama tanpa sepengetahuan apalagi persetujuan dari pemegang Hak Cipta lagu-lagu tersebut, berarti setidaknya Rasset sudah dengan sengaja menyediakan lagu-lagu tersebut untuk direproduksi secara tidak sah.

Jelas bukan hal yang sulit bagi pengacara manapun untuk membuktikan dan bagi hakim manapun untuk memutus bahwa telah terjadi pelanggaran Hak Cipta dalam kasus ini. Yang menarik buat saya justru karena suksesnya gugatan pengadilan yang diajukan industri melawan pelanggar HKI individual berskala rumahan ini menandai “one new step forward” dari gejala yang mulai mengemuka sejak beberapa tahun terakhir ini dimana industri hiburan yang memiliki begitu banyak aset intelektual yang dilindungi Hak Cipta bertindak semakin gencar dan agresif dalam melindungi aset-aset intelektual mereka.

Kita masih ingat bagaimana Disney dengan gigih mensponsori amandemen perpanjangan masa perlindungan Hak Cipta dari semula 50 menjadi 70 tahun setelah meninggalnya pencipta, yang membuat UU yang memuat amandemen tersebut diolok-olok sebagai Mickey Mouse Act.

Dan sekarang industri rekaman yang pasang taring. Setelah sempat merontokkan beberapa situs file-sharing seperti Napster dan Kazaa, kali ini giliran para end-user dengan PC masing-masing di rumah yang disasar, termasuk seorang ibu rumah-tangga bernama Jammie Thomas-Rasset tadi. Selain Rasset terdapat pula sekitar 30,000 pengguna lainnya yang terkena gugatan serupa dari industri musik, bayangkan! Meskipun akhirnya semua memilih untuk menyelesaikan sengketa di luar pengadilan dengan nilai damai rata-rata sekitar 3,500 dolar per individu, jauh lebih tinggi dari rata-rata nilai damai saat Anda melanggar lampu merah…

***

Tren semakin agresifnya industri rekaman dalam melindungi aset intelektual mereka juga dapat dimaknai sebagai sinyal jelas kepanikan industri tersebut dalam menghadapi ancaman semakin tergerusnya pasar musik dengan media fisik yang konvensional oleh musik berformat digital, yang dengan bantuan internet makin mudah untuk diperbanyak dan disebarluaskan dimana kontrol justru menjadi semakin sulit untuk dilakukan.

Dari sudut pandang penegakan HKI secara saklek memang tidak ada yang salah dengan aggressive enforcement yang dilakukan oleh para pemegang Hak Cipta karena itu memang hak mereka sebagai bagian dari hak eksklusif yang diberikan. Namun dari sudut pandang sosial, jika kebablasan, reaksi agresif semacam ini justru berpotensi menjadi bumerang dan menimbulkan masalah baru bagi industri rekaman itu sendiri.

Perlu disadari bahwa penghargaan terhadap HKI dari masyarakat salah-satunya sangat dipengaruhi oleh respek masyarakat terhadap pencipta, dalam konteks ini musisi, dan karya cipta yang dihasilkannya. Nah, kalau industri rekaman terlalu membabi-buta menggugat setiap orang yang dianggap melanggar Hak Cipta, bisa-bisa respek masyarakat dan konsumen penikmat musik malah akan tergerus dan membuat mereka tidak peduli sama-sekali. Bukan tidak mungkin para pembajak dan pelanggar Hak Cipta nantinya malah dielu-elukan sebagai “pahlawan” semacam Robin Hood yang “memberikan” hiburan secara mudah dan cuma-cuma, meskipun dari hasil “merampok” industri musik yang menjual musik kemahalan dan masih sempat juga tega-teganya menangkapi para penikmat musik di rumah masing-masing.

Bagi saya apa yang diharapkan oleh GIGI dalam artikel mereka terkait political will dalam penegakan perlindungan Hak Cipta benar adanya dan mesti didukung. Ketegasan pemerintah dan aparat hukum dalam melaksanakan UU Hak Cipta secara efektif dan konsisten untuk memberantas pembajakan dengan serius dan sungguh-sungguh adalah suatu hal yang sangat penting dan mutlak adanya.

Namun di sisi lain, penting juga bagi para musisi dan industri yang menaungi mereka untuk mengkombinasikan upaya memerangi pembajakan itu dengan kemauan untuk lebih luwes dan fleksibel beradaptasi dengan tuntutan masyarakat konsumen musik di era teknologi informasi seperti sekarang ini demi memelihara respek konsumen terhadap karya-karya yang dihasilkan. Meksipun pembajakan mungkin tidak akan dapat diberantas habis sampai kapanpun, tapi paling tidak bisa diminimalisir karena semakin banyak orang yang berpikir dua kali untuk memperoleh lagu secara ilegal.

Terima-kasih Kang Armand dan kawan-kawan untuk uneg-uneg dan inspirasinya, mudah-mudahan kalian tidak semakin sering merasa panas dan pusing karena ulah pembajak yang nakal-nakal itu…

HKI UNTUK WARISAN BUDAYA TRADISIONAL: PATENKANLAH KUE-KU…!

Belum lama ini sebuah e-mail diterima oleh kantor kami dari seorang staf pemerintahan daerah salah-satu kabupaten di Kalimantan, menanyakan kemungkinan untuk “mematenkan” beberapa aset lokal yang dimiliki oleh daerah tersebut, tanpa menyebutkan apa saja aset lokal yang dimaksud. Kebetulan sekali, saya yang bertugas menangani pertanyaan tersebut pernah tinggal di daerah tersebut selama empat tahun dahulu ketika saya masih duduk di bangku sekolah dasar, ikut orang-tua yang bertugas di sana.

Dalam e-mail balasan sempat saya singgung sedikit mengenai pengalaman masa kecil saya itu, sambil menjelaskan sedikit tentang sistem HKI dan menanyakan lebih lanjut dalam bentuk apakah aset-aset lokal yang ingin mereka lindungi. Dalam e-mail selanjutnya, si penanya mengungkapkan keterkejutannya mengetahui saya pernah mempunyai hubungan langsung secara pribadi dengan daerah tempat tinggal mereka, dan langsung menyebutkan beberapa kudapan khas daerah tersebut sebagai aset-aset lokal yang ingin mereka “paten”-kan.

Membaca e-mail tersebut, mau tak mau ingatan saya langsung melayang ke kenangan belasan tahun yang lalu tentang tempat tersebut, berikut kudapan-kudapan yang disebutkan dalam e-mail yang memang dahulu menjadi kegemaran saya semasa kecil. Saking ngiler-nya, hampir-hampir saya lupa untuk melanjutkan bekerja…

***

Semangat untuk mem-”paten”-kan produk-produk tradisional memang mulai menjamur di kalangan masyarakat dan pemerintah lokal di berbagai daerah di Indonesia. Kalau saya tidak salah ingat, fenomena ini diawali dengan isu kencang telah dipatenkannya beberapa aset budaya lokal kita seperti batik dan tempe oleh bangsa lain, dan semakin memanas saat lagu “Rasa Sayange” dipergunakan oleh negeri jiran Malaysia dalam situs promosi pariwisata negara itu, tanpa ijin atau persetujuan dari Indonesia.

Sejak saat itu, seolah-olah seluruh daerah mulai berlomba untuk melindungi kekayaan lokal mereka sedapat mungkin dengan cara apapun, khususnya melalui perlindungan HKI. Fenomena ini sebenarnya cukup menarik dan positif, terlebih karena akhirnya kebudayaan tradisional kita yang selama ini begitu kepayahan membendung derasnya arus modernisasi kembali dilirik dan diperhatikan sebagai aset intelektual yang berharga lebih dari sekadar pemanis museum atau buku-buku pelajaran IPS.

Hanya saja, kegairahan ini belum dibarengi dengan pemahaman yang memadai mengenai sistem perlindungan hak kekayaan intelektual, sehingga kerap menimbulkan salah-kaprah. Contoh paling kentara tentu saja adalah penggunaan membabi-buta istilah “paten” atau “mematenkan” untuk hampir semua objek pembicaraan yang terkait dengan perlindungan HKI. Celakanya kesalah-kaprahan ini tidak saja terjadi pada masyarakat awam, melainkan justru sering dilakukan oleh media massa nasional yang seharusnya menjadi alat pembelajaran bagi masyarakat pada umumnya.

Segalanya lantas mau dipatenkan, mematenkan batik, mematenkan rendang, mematenkan merek, bahkan mematenkan buku dan lagu. Padahal paten hanya salah-satu dari sekian banyak anggota keluarga besar Hak atas Kekayaan Intelektual atau HKI. Dan objek perlindungan paten pun terbatas hanya pada invensi (penemuan) di bidang teknologi yang baru, mengandung langkah inventif dan dapat diterapkan dalam industri.

Selain paten masih ada Hak Cipta yang melindungi ekspresi-ekspresi asli/orisinil seorang pencipta di bidang ilmu pengetahuan, sastra ataupun seni seperti buku, karya-karya tulis, lagu, syair, puisi, patung, dan lain sebagainya. Merek sebagai penanda asal-usul suatu barang/jasa yang dilindungi sepanjang tidak sama dengan merek yang sudah lebih dahulu terdaftar milik pihak lain. Atau Desain Industri yang melindungi tampilan estetika yang baru dari suatu produk industri. Masing-masing memiliki karakteristik, ruang lingkup, serta kekuatan perlindungan yang berbeda-beda.

Oke, mungkin kalau saya jelaskan secara panjang lebar tentang HKI dan keluarga besarnya, si orang pemda yang menanyakan tadi akan langsung merasa bingung dan bosan dan lantas memotong “kuliah” saya tersebut dengan pertanyaan bernada tidak sabar, “jadi perlindungan HKI apa dong yang menurut Anda tepat untuk kudapan-kudapan asli daerah saya ini?”

Dan dengan sangat menyesal, mungkin dengan ditambah ekspresi muka a la kucing bersepatu boot di film Shrek II, saya akan terpaksa menjawab dengan: “Maaf pak, sepertinya tidak ada…”

Lho kok begitu?

Untuk menjawabnya, pertama marilah kita berandai-andai bahwa produk yang hendak di-”paten”-kan itu tadi adalah colenak atau peuyeum bandung, misalnya. Colenak atau peuyeum jelas bukan teknologi baru yang artinya tidak dapat diberi paten. Colenak atau peuyeum juga bukan ekspresi orisinil berbentuk buku atau karya tulis atau lagu, meskipun ada lagu daerah berjudul peuyeum bandung yang katanya “tos kakoncara ku nikmat rasana” itu. Colenak atau peuyeum juga adalah nama definitif/generik dari kudapan yang dimaksud, sehingga tidak bisa didaftarkan sebagai merek. Untuk indikasi geografis sih mungkin saja, sepanjang bahan baku colenak atau peuyeum hanya bisa diambil dari singkong jenis tertentu dan tumbuh di daerah tertentu pula. Dan soal desain, rasanya kalaupun desain colenak dan peuyeum dianggap cukup baru untuk dilindungi, tidak akan ada yang mau buang-buang uang mendaftarkan bentuk colenak yang sedemikian lembek itu.

Kedua, inti permasalahannya terletak pada perbedaan karakteristik yang sangat fundamental antara produk-produk tradisional seperti kudapan khas daerah tadi dengan sistem perlindungan HKI umumnya.

Secara umum perlindungan HKI diberikan kepada karya-karya intelektual yang baru/orisinil, sebagai bentuk penghargaan (reward) kepada sang inventor/pencipta karena telah berkontribusi kepada kemajuan kebudayaan dan ilmu-pengetahuan dengan karya-karyanya tersebut. Sebaliknya, produk-produk tradisional adalah sesuatu yang sudah ada sejak lama dan dihasilkan secara turun-temurun, diwariskan dari generasi ke generasi selama puluhan bahkan mungkin ratusan atau ribuan tahun lamanya. Baru? Saya rasa tidak. Orisinil? Mungkin, tapi masalahnya, siapa dulu yang menciptakan?

Lantas mengapa batik dan tempe bisa dipatenkan oleh bangsa lain?

Nah itu dia bukti kesalah-kaprahan kita selanjutnya. Batik atau tempe seperti yang kita kenal, baik motif-motif yang sudah lazim, wujud maupun proses pembuatannya tidak dapat dipatenkan oleh siapapun. Bukan karena sudah dimiliki dan dimonopoli oleh suatu bangsa tertentu, tapi ya karena alasan di paragraf di atas tadi: baik batik maupun tempe sama-sama produk warisan tradisional yang sudah dikenal selama ratusan tahun lamanya, sehingga tidak mungkin bisa memenuhi syarat kebaruan.

Kalau Anda berkesempatan berkunjung ke website US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO – link-nya tersedia di bagian kanan blog saya ini), coba cari paten bernomor US 6,821,313 yang diberi pada tahun 2004 dan masih berlaku hingga tahun 2022, berjudul Method and Kit for Batik Art. Paten ini diberikan kepada Scratch-Art Company, Inc. yang berkedudukan di negara bagian Massachusetts atas karya seorang inventor berkebangsaan Amerika Serikat bernama Nathan Polsky. Silakan Anda pelajari abstrak, spesifikasi dan klaim-klaimnya dan Anda akan mendapati bahwa paten ini terkait dengan invensi berupa metode dan alat baru untuk melakukan pembatikan tanpa perlu menggunakan malam yang dipanaskan dan dilelehkan serta tanpa canting.

Ya, sebagaimana paten ini serta paten-paten terkait batik ataupun tempe, semuanya diberikan pada invensi-invensi hasil pengembangan yang dilakukan terhadap produk maupun proses pembatikan atau pembuatan tempe yang yang selama ini kita kenal. Dan saya katakan di sini bahwa itu bukanlah pencurian. Pertama karena batik atau tempe adalah warisan budaya dunia yang bisa dimanfaatkan oleh siapa saja dengan bebas karena telah menjadi milik umum. Dan kedua karena kita yang selama ini melihat batik dan tempe sehari-hari di depan jidat kita sendiri toh cuma anteng-anteng saja memanfaatkan warisan budaya itu seadanya.

Disinilah mestinya kita tersadar bahwa di samping kesalah-kaprahan kita selama ini, dosa terbesar kita berikutnya adalah ketidak-pedulian serta tidak adanya penghargaan kita terhadap warisan budaya kita sendiri. Cara terbaik untuk memelihara dan melestarikan warisan budaya bukan dengan mengawetkannya di museum atau menuliskannya di buku-buku sejarah untuk kemudian hanya ditengok paling-paling setahun sekali setiap tujuh-belasan atau hari Kartini. Bukan dengan itu, melainkan dengan menggunakan kecerdasan dan kreativitas kita untuk mengembangkan warisan-warisan budaya tersebut sehingga tetap sesuai dengan jamannya.

Jadi ya jangan marah kalau orang mematenkan pengembangan terhadap tempe kita, kalau kita sendiri masih malu-malu untuk memasukkan tempe sebagai menu hidangan untuk menjamu tamu-tamu penting kita. Dan anak-anak muda kita juga jangan sampai menghujani Malaysia dengan hujatan-hujatan di blog gara-gara memakai lagu “Rasa Sayange”, sementara mereka sendiri terlalu asyik mendengarkan musik R&B – yang sebenarnya dikembangkan dari musik ritmik tradisional Afrika itu – dan lupa kalau ada lagu berjudul Rasa Sayange sampai jiran kita memakainya.

***

Akhirnya dengan berat hati saya sampaikan pada orang pemda tadi melalui e-mail bahwa kudapan-kudapan enak mereka ternyata tidak klik dengan perlindungan HKI yang ada.

Kecuali…

…mungkin mereka membuat pengembangan-pengembangan yang secara teknologi mengandung langkah inventif dan baru sehingga pengembangan tersebut dapat dilindungi paten;….

…menerbitkan buku-buku resep atau memproduksi video-video kuliner pembuatan kudapan-kudapan tersebut, yang dapat dilindungi hak cipta, sekaligus membuat kudapan-kudapan itu bisa lebih luas dikenal;…

…mengemas kudapan-kudapan tersebut dengan label merek tertentu yang khas dan memiliki daya pembeda sehinggal dapat didaftarkan sebagai merek barang atau sekaligus dengan merek jasa untuk pemasarannya…

tentunya dengan dibarengi dengan strategi branding dan pemasaran yang efektif sehingga citra kudapan tersebut akan melekat dengan kuat pada daerah mereka.

Tinggal bagaimana kreativitas saja tentunya…

LANGKAH INVENTIF DALAM PATEN: BUKAN DENGAN MEJIK…!

Beberapa hari yang lalu saya bersama beberapa rekan kerja diundang untuk rapat di kantor salah satu klien lokal kami di kawasan Semanggi. Sejak beberapa minggu terakhir kami memang sedang menyiapkan laporan patentability analysis terhadap sebuah pengembangan teknologi yang ditemukan oleh klien tersebut. Tujuan dilakukannya patentability analysis tentunya adalah untuk mengetahui sejauh mana suatu pengembangan teknologi yang dihasilkan dapat memenuhi syarat untuk diberi perlindungan paten sesuai dengan ketentuan perundang-undangan yang berlaku.

Rapat kali ini adalah yang untuk kesekian-kalinya dilakukan, dimana setelah beberapa minggu menelaah dokumen-dokumen yang diberikan oleh klien terkait dengan penemuannya tadi kami merasa masih belum juga menemukan titik terang mengenai aspek yang mana dari penemuan tersebut yang dapat dipatenkan. Data-data yang diberikan kepada kami mengenai penemuan tersebut rata-rata sudah tercakup dalam dokumen-dokumen paten maupun publikasi lainnya yang kami temukan saat melakukan proses penelusuran paten. Untuk bisa mengetahui lebih detail mengenai penemuan tersebut sehingga bisa dianalisis keunggulannya dibanding penemuan yang sudah ada kami tentunya memerlukan data-data teknis lanjutan yang lebih mendalam dan spesifik. Itulah yang sudah kami rencanakan untuk kami mintakan kepada klien dalam rapat kali ini sambil memberikan hasil sementara dari analisis yang sudah sejauh ini kami lakukan.

Mendengar permintaan kami, klien yang diwakili langsung oleh si peneliti yang mengembangkan teknologi tersebut langsung tertawa. Dia tidak menyangka bahwa data yang dia anggap sudah cukup itu ternyata masih kurang. Dia mengakui bahwa dirinya memang tidak punya pengalaman mempersiapkan pengajuan paten sebelumnya, sehingga dia tidak punya bayangan mesti se-spesifik apa data teknis yang harus diberikan untuk mendapatkan hasil yang seakurat mungkin.

Sambil tertawa dia juga bilang kalau dia memang sengaja menyederhanakan data yang dia berikan karena kebiasaan kalau memberikan laporan kepada para boss-nya, yang biasanya akan pusing kalau sudah diberi data teknis yang terlalu njelimet.

Saya jawab ketika itu bahwa untuk keperluan pengajuan paten justru sebaliknya. Pemeriksa paten adalah orang yang ahli di bidangnya masing-masing, dan sesuai dengan persyaratan untuk dapat diberi paten maka suatu invensi atau penemuan haruslah “tidak dapat diduga” – atau istilah yang dipergunakan di Amerika Serikat, not obvious – oleh orang yang ahli di bidang terkait, khususnya dalam hal ini adalah si pemeriksa paten.

Sambil bergurau saya tambahkan: “the more confusing the specification you give to the examiners, the more not-obvious it will likely to appear to them”!

***

Sesuai dengan ketentuan Pasal 2 ayat 1 UU no. 14/2001 tentang Paten, tiga syarat substansial agar suatu invensi dapat diberi paten adalah invensi tersebut harus (1) baru, (2) mengandung langkah inventif dan (3) dapat diterapkan dalam industri.

Syarat kebaruan dapat dipenuhi apabila invensi tersebut tidak sama dengan teknologi yang sudah ada dan pernah diungkap sebelumnya, baik melalui dokumen-dokumen paten terdahulu, jurnal ilmiah, spesifikasi teknis alat, maupun uraian lisan atau peragaan pada pameran dan kegiatan serupa. Sederhananya, sepanjang invensi tersebut belum pernah diketahui keberadaannya oleh orang banyak sebelumnya, bisa dibilang syarat kebaruan bisa dipenuhi dengan sukses.

Syarat dapat diterapkan dalam industri juga nggak sulit-sulit amat. Mentang-mentang ada kata industri, jangan dulu membayangkan bahwa suatu invensi harus diproduksi secara masal dalam sebuah pabrik yang besar. Industri di sini maksudnya adalah invensi tersebut harus dapat diproduksi atau dilaksanakan secara berulang-ulang dengan standar kualitas hasil yang sama.

Nah tapi kalau sudah masuk ke syarat memenuhi langkah inventif ini memang jadi gampang-gampang susah. Salah satu pasalnya barangkali adalah karena syarat ini cenderung lebih subjektif dibandingkan dengan kedua syarat lainnya. Betapa tidak, pasal 2 ayat 2 sendiri menyatakan bahwa suatu invensi haruslah tidak dapat diduga sebelumnya bagi orang yang memiliki keahlian di bidang teknik yang relevan, tentunya dengan memperhatikan teknologi saat itu. Masalahnya tentu saja “tidak dapat diduga” bagi seorang ahli belum tentu “tidak dapat diduga” bagi ahli yang lain bukan?

Padahal justru persyaratan “langkah inventif” inilah inti dari perlindungan paten yang diberikan kepada “invention” dan bukannya kepada “discovery”. Kedua istilah asing tersebut memang dapat diartikan sebagai “penemuan” dalam bahasa Indonesia, tapi tentu saja dengan makna dan muatan yang berbeda. Christoper Colombus tidak “menemukan” benua Amerika dalam makna yang sama dengan Thomas Edison “menemukan” bola lampu, karena benua Amerika memang sudah ada dan “nongkrong” di antara samudera Pasifik dan Atlantik sejak ribuan abad sebelum Colombus dilahirkan. Tentu saja, penemuan Colombus adalah discovery sedangkan penemuan Edison adalah invention, dan UU Paten pun sejak 2001 telah memilih menggunakan istilah “invensi” ketimbang “penemuan” untuk membedakan keduanya.

Tujuannya jelas: paten hanya diberikan kepada teknologi-teknologi baru yang dilahirkan dari langkah-langkah inventif yang jelas, bukannya teknologi-teknologi yang lahir berdasarkan keberuntungan semata, apalagi dari wangsit seperti halnya menebak nomor judi togel. Paten harus dipahami sebagai suatu bentuk reward yang diberikan oleh negara kepada seorang inventor (UU Paten menggunakan istilah ini dan bukan “penemu”), dan yang dianggap layak oleh negara untuk dihargai dengan pemberian hak eksklusif adalah proses yang ditempuh oleh seorang inventor untuk menghasilkan invensinya, bukan semata-mata hasil invensinya itu sendiri. Alasannya tentu saja karena di dalam proses itulah si inventor mencurahkan tenaga, kemampuan serta sumber daya yang dimilikinya demi menghasilkan sesuatu yang diharapkan.

Saat seseorang, misalnya, mengaku menemukan bahan bakar untuk mobil yang lebih ekonomis dan efisien daripada bensin, maka fakta bahwa bahan bakar itu lebih ekonomis dan efisien saja tidaklah cukup untuk memenuhi persyaratan langkah inventif sebagaimana yang diminta untuk mendapatkan paten. Haruslah dapat dijelaskan secara teknis bagaimana bahan-bakar temuan tersebut menjawab problem efisiensi yang terdapat pada bahan-bakar yang sudah ada, formula apa yang dipergunakan, campuran apa saja yang membentuk formula tersebut, serta bagaimana kesimpulan yang mengarah pada dihasilkannya formula tersebut dicapai, dengan hitung-hitungan yang seperti apa, dan lain sebagainya. Dan kalau jawaban dari semua pertanyaan-pertanyaan tadi tidak lebih baik dari sekedar “gak tau ya, coba-coba aja campur ini sama itu, eh tau-tau ketemu deh”, lupakan saja soal perlindungan paten…

Bahkan penerapan teknologi yang sudah ada untuk sesuatu objek yang baru pun belum tentu bisa memenuhi langkah inventif tersebut. Sebagai contoh, semua orang sepertinya tahu bahwa serbuk kopi instan dibuat dengan proses granulasi dimana air kopi dikeringkan sedemikian rupa menjadi serbuk yang kemudian dapat dicairkan kembali dengan ditambahkan air panas. Mengadopsi teknik serupa untuk jenis minuman lain seperti bandrek atau wedang jahe mungkin merupakan sesuatu yang baru, tapi tidaklah inventif karena orang dapat dengan mudah menduga bahwa serbuk bandrek atau wedang jahe instan tersebut dihasilkan melalui proses granulasi yang sama dengan serbuk kopi instan.

***

Pembuktian adanya langkah inventif adalah hal yang sangat penting yang harus diperhatikan oleh setiap inventor yang ingin mematenkan invensinya. Meskipun subjektivitas pemeriksa paten ataupun hakim dalam sengketa-sengketa paten bisa cukup berpengaruh, namun setidaknya terdapat beberapa tolok ukur yang diperoleh dari preseden-preseden di berbagai negara yang dapat membantu menilai ada-tidaknya langkah inventif ini secara lebih objektif, yang akan saya coba bahas di blog ini dalam diskusi-diskusi selanjutnya.

Hal inilah yang kami coba terangkan secara panjang lebar kepada klien kami dalam rapat tadi, yang didengarkannya dengan cukup seksama sambil manggut-manggut, entah karena mengerti atau mengantuk. Yang jelas, kami lalu meninggalkan pekerjaan rumah supaya si klien memberi kami data-data yang lebih spesifik dan mendetail mengenai proses yang dilakukannya demi menghasilkan invensi tersebut. Mudah-mudahan saja, pada rapat yang akan datang kami tidak lagi mentok di situ-situ saja…amiiin…

PERFORMING RIGHTS AND COLLECTING SOCIETY UNDER INDONESIAN COPYRIGHT LAW: A COMMENT ON THE CURRENT YKCI-ASIRI DISPUTE

(Published in the JIII Yearly Magazine IP COMMUNITY Volume 10 – March 2007)

Article 2(1) of Indonesia Law no. 19/2002 on Copyrights (the Copyright Law of 2002) defines copyrights as exclusive rights given to authors or rights holders to publish or reproduce their respective works. In the context of songs or musical works[1], the said exclusive rights indeed fall into the hands of the songwriters.

The said exclusive rights, as explicitly read in the law, in fact consist basically of two separate yet highly-related rights to perform two distinguishable acts respectively: the right to publish/perform and the right to copy. While the difference between the two lies within the different concepts of publishing and copying a copyrighted work, as has indeed occurred in many cases, the failure to understand such concepts consequently leads to further confusion when copyright protection comes to actual application and enforcement.

Publishing/performing is defined by the law to include reciting, broadcasting, exhibiting, putting on sale, circulating, or disseminating copyrighted works using any possible medium including the internet; or engaging in any act that would enable a copyrighted work to be read, heard, or seen by others[2]. Rights to publish or to perform are often referred to as performing rights. 

On the other hand, copying is defined as the act of reproducing a particular work, either in its entirety or a substantial part thereof, using identical or different materials, including permanent or temporary transformation of the work[3] (i.e., the mechanical right).

Reproduction of a song or musical work technically occurs every time the song is sung or played, either in its entirety or a single line thereof, and regardless of what instrument, equipment, or arrangements are used for the process. When someone buys an authorized notation sheet or record of Sir Elton John’s Your Song, for instance, that person is actually licensed through this purchase to execute the said mechanical right by playing the song with his or her guitar according to the notation sheet, or by playing the record in his or her own stereo system—both for personal enjoyment.

But one couldn’t care less than to keep his playing of a copyrighted music through a CD he legally bought away from others, or let’s say public, presence. At the time this person sings or plays the song in front of the public, regardless of the number or the commercial nature, through the definition prescribed by the law this person has already moved into publishing or performing a copyrighted work publicly—which is a shift from merely exercising the mechanical rights as authorized, to exercising the performing rights to which he or she is not entitled.

In a real sense, however, while the licensing of mechanical rights by the owner of the work is relatively easy to do through the sales of music records, the situation regarding performing rights is often a bit more complicated. Public performances of musical works could happen just anywhere at any given time since songs are played in hotels, restaurants, cafes, shopping centers, karaoke houses, hospitals, and many other public places. As a result, this would provide significant headaches as to the matter of licensing and collecting royalties. Frankly speaking, if every songwriter must endeavor alone regarding the licensing for public performances of songs, no songwriter could create more songs due to a lack of time.

Here is where organizations called “performing rights collecting societies”[4] are doing what is essentially similar to a work of magic. Instead of licensing their own songs and collecting royalties individually, songwriters gather together in collective societies that in turn do this kind of work on their behalf. Using the common blanket licensing system, a collecting society charges music users a flat rate per annum for a repertoire of songs that the society manages on behalf of the respective songwriters. The royalties are then distributed to the rightful recipients based upon play-lists that are submitted by the music users.

For Sir Elton John & co., life suddenly becomes beautiful again since the collecting societies do all the work and they are able to sit down and relax in an armchair while thinking of other hits to make…

***

For the past 16 years, the role of the performing rights collecting society has been taken by Yayasan Karya Cipta Indonesia (YKCI). This non-profit organization has legal power as assigned by more or less 2,500 local Indonesian songwriters. Being a member of CISAC[5], this organization also represents the interests of thousands of songwriters worldwide with regard to performing rights.

Albeit not for the first time[6], in the past few months YKCI has been forced to fasten its seat-belt as the road is getting bumpier than ever. ASIRI, the national association for the recording industry, put a legal notice ad in a nationwide daily newspaper in mid-2006 demanding YKCI to cease its activities of collecting royalties from business establishments such as shopping malls, hotels, restaurants and the likes for playing music in their premises[7].

 

ASIRI alleges that YKCI has gone too far beyond its actual legal capacity since not every songwriter has assigned YKCI the power to act on his/her behalf with regard to royalties upon performing rights, while there is no mention at all within the Copyright Law of 2002 authorizing YKCI to collect royalties for performing rights from all music users.

 

ASIRI also argues that even though the existence and role of YKCI are still necessary, YKCI should have been collecting royalties from live music performances instead of from the public playing of recorded music belonging to ASIRI members. As the national recording industry association, ASIRI claimed to have a membership of about 80 recording companies. Every company is said to have exclusive rights over every master recording it produces, including the publishing of recorded songs. This is derived from the agreement a songwriter enters into with a record company to record his/her works.

 

This still ongoing dispute actually runs much deeper than a mere dispute between a performing rights collecting society and the recording industry association concerning the performing rights of copyrighted works. YKCI basically acts on behalf of artists and songwriters, whereas ASIRI is obviously a representation body of the recording companies. Indeed, what lies beneath anything that happened between the two is basically no less than the classic dispute between songwriters or artists on one side and the industry on the other side, with regard to the very basic concept of copyright ownership itself.

 

***

 

I think it is quite obvious that if we were to treat the current YKCI-ASIRI dispute as a dispute between songwriters vs. recording companies with regard to copyright ownership issues, we might as well look back to the basic provisions of the Copyright Law of 2002. Once again, Article 1(1) clearly states that copyrights are the exclusive rights reserved only to “the author” or “the assignee of rights.” Indeed, within the context of songs or musical works, the respective songwriters shall always be regarded as the “authors”—thus the owners—of their works.

 

On the other hand, nobody could ever deny the inevitability of recording companies’ role in the modern music industry, which literally turns raw materials in the form of songs from the songwriters into a finished music recording. There is certain added value to the original song thanks to record producers, which is a process that indeed requires considerable investment.

 

The Copyright Law of 2002 also recognizes this importance, and as such has granted what is called “neighboring rights” to producers of sound recordings, thereby granting them exclusive rights to allow or forbid any other party without their consent to copy and/or lend their music or sound recordings. Looking at the scope of said neighboring rights, it should be clear and obvious that producers of sound recordings are granted significant rights to control their works. However, one should also bear in mind that the sound recording over which the producers reserve their rights should be based upon legally acquired songs from the respective songwriters.

 

Nevertheless, in actual circumstances, sometimes every thing that could go wrong seems to indeed go from bad to worse. In some cases, songwriters find themselves in such a weak and disadvantageous bargaining position so as to eventually lead them to submit to whatever the recording producers want them to do – e.g. agreeing on a contractual basis to sell or transfer all rights over a song or music work to the recording producer, including both the mechanical and performing rights thereof. There are also many cases, moreover, where both the songwriters and the producers are not even aware of the copyright provisions in the Copyright Law of 2002.

 

I believe that by providing such a configuration of rules and protections, the Indonesian Copyright Law actually tries to set a balance of rights and interests. Value added to a song or music work that has become a sound recording shall be respected by granting certain exclusive rights to the producer in a way that shall not by any means jeopardize the interests of the respective songwriters.

 

Based upon the above convictions, I am of the opinion that a final and concluding settlement over YKCI-ASIRI is very crucial indeed. Not only would this clarify the position of YKCI as the performing rights collecting society in Indonesia, but far beyond this, it would serve as a perfect device for redefining the vital role of the copyright system itself in bridging the realm of musical creation and the music industry in Indonesia—especially for securing the rights of each stakeholder therein.

 

 

---

 

PROTECTION SYNERGY: HOW WE LEARN TO STOP WORRYING ABOUT IPR AND OUR TRADITIONAL KNOWLEDGE

(Published in GREENERS Magazine, Bandung, Indonesia – November 2007 Edition)

 

As the home to world’s largest biodiversity second only to Brazil, as well as hundreds of different ethnic groups, it is fairly understandable if traditional knowledge can also be easily found among local communities in Indonesia. Traditional knowledge (TK), can generally be understood as a set of traits, wisdoms, and practices possessed and maintained by the beholding community, which emerged and gradually evolved through centuries of its mutual bounds and interaction with the respective surrounding nature. One of the common examples of TK, for instance, is traditional medicines made out of local plants/herbal substances.

 

While such traditional knowledge is indeed a priceless cultural heritage for the respective nation, sometimes it also holds economic potential of very significant values. This situation in fact often exposes the respective local community to the eminent danger of what is commonly referred to as biopiracy, which is outsider’s non-rightful commercial exploitation of traditional knowledge and natural resources.  The most common scene of biopiracy occurs when a local indigenous community openly exposes its own traditional knowledge to visiting foreigners, who later turn out to “steal” it for further commercial exploitation without making any appropriate attribution.

 

On the other hand, Indonesia has for years been member to a number of international treaties and conventions on Intellectual Property Rights (IPR), the most important of which would be Bern Convention 1886 for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works and Paris Convention 1883 for the Protection of Industrial Property, and the recent Agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS Agreement) as one integral and inseparable part of the Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization (WTO). Indonesia is also a member of World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO).

 

WIPO defines IPR as rights that evolve from human intellectual activities in the fields of industry, science, literary, and arts. While no one is really sure about when it was coined for the first time, the term IPR itself primarily serves as the “blanket name” to refer to different kinds or regimes of exclusive rights protection system, with each and every single of which has evolved developed and also covers subject matters distinguishable from one another. Copyright, for instance, protects original artistic, literary, or scientific works; whereas patent protects technological inventions.

Slightly different, trademark protects distinctive marks used by a single business provider/operator as to distinguish the respective goods and/or services from goods and/or services endorsed by other operators. Among various and ever-evolving kinds of IPR, following its ratification of the TRIPS Agreement in 1994 Indonesia currently applies seven regimes of IPR: Copyright, Patent, Trademark, Industrial Designs, Integrated Circuit Layout Design, Trade Secrets, and Plant Varieties.

 

It is true that traditional knowledge is also having the sense of being “intellectual property” as it is actually resulted from long process of human intellectual creation. However, protecting traditional knowledge under the existing regimes of modern IPR system cannot be seen as a feasible solution. Both are actually working on different principles. Existing IPR regimes are based upon the concept of individual property rights, acting as a limited monopoly in the form of exclusive rights for the rights holder to exclude any other party to use the protected subject matter without his permission. In the contrary, traditional knowledge in the contrary is under the communal system of common proprietary and common use with the perpetual desire to always be that way.

 

More obstacles will thus appear within the technical aspects. Patents, for instance, can only be granted to inventions that are novel, meaning that it has never been disclosed anywhere in any form before; inventive, meaning that the invention is not obvious to any person skilled in the relevant art; and industrially applicable, meaning there is sufficient teaching with regard to composition, steps and/or procedures as to enable any one to perform the invention at any given time and place. It is difficult to expect traditional knowledge to fulfill those requirements as it would fail already at the very first test of novelty: as the name speaks for itself, all traditional knowledge have been existed for centuries long as each and every single one is inherited from generations to generations. Technically speaking, there should be no way that patent can be granted upon any traditional knowledge.

 

Technically speaking, am I correct? Well, actually there was in fact one shameful instance in which patent was granted upon a widely used traditional knowledge, at least until the patent was later invalidated. In 1995, the United States Patent and Trademarks Office (USPTO) granted patent to the University of Mississippi Medical Center for an invention entitled “Use of Turmeric in Wound Healing”. The patent immediately caused public outcries especially among Indian communities that have been very familiar to turmeric powder as household remedy for scrapes and cuts. Later in 1996 the patent was successfully challenged by the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research of India (CSIR) and thus revoked. However, the revocation succeeded not solely because turmeric had been in actual use for wound-healing in centuries, but more because CSIR was able to provide scientific documents and literatures indicating the relevant disclosure. Indeed, many people were still left wondering how this patent could even passed the USPTO’s novelty and inventive steps test at the first place.

 

Correct me if I’m wrong, but I also believe that the recent “Rasa Sayange” incident still lives in our memory, in which the use of the Indonesian folksong by Malaysian government for their tourism TV advertisement had, not surprisingly, succeeded in igniting public outcry in Indonesia. However, if we put aside for a while our “patriotic sentiment” and look closer, we would see that it is actually us who deserve more for the blame. The song “Rasa Sayange” as well as any other folk creations alike can hardly fit into the protection of “conventional” copyrights system, which requires the creator to be identifiable and had been around living up to at least fifty years ago[1]. On the other hand, up to this moment the Indonesian government is still unable to formulate the actual implementing regulation for what they call as “folklore copyrights” in the Law no.19/2002 on Copyrights, which should have been able to guard our cultural assets from misappropriation. For myself, however, I was kind of relieved to know that at least there is someone out there who is willing to take care of the beautiful “Rasa Sayange” before the song fall into obscurity, hidden in our “vault of cultural treasure”.

 

Anyway, the above incident and some other instances alike should not necessarily lead us to conclude that the present system of IPR is bad and harmful for the good of traditional people, their knowledge, and moreover, their way of life. The IPR system is already here with its own purpose and good: rewarding innovation as well as fostering more and more innovations; and has actually done quite a wonderful job on it. At this moment, a world without IPR protection is simply unthinkable of. As technological researches are getting more and more expensive, nobody would even think to engage in such activities without being sure of what he will reap in return of the investment. 

 

While knowledge and other creative works belong to traditional realms would hardly fit unto the protection of modern IPR, it is not impossible for us to design a specific protection system that will better accommodate the needs of traditional knowledge. In this regard, such protection must be able to preserve its sustainability and guarantee its availability to common good without becoming subject to exclusive individual ownership of any form.

 

One of the major obstacles to achieve above goal is that up to this moment we’re still lacking proper inventarization regarding what and which traditional knowledge we suppose to have, while documents and literatures regarding the subject are still rare and scattered in too many places. This is an unfortunate situation for us all, since a reliable database about our collection of traditional knowledge would make a good starting point for building a strong protection system thereof. . Remember, it was those scientific documents and literatures about turmeric that actually won the battle of patent invalidation, not the mere knowledge of its generic use for medication. In other words, we can never get anywhere without knowing what we actually have.

 

For safeguarding purpose, it is also important to raise the IPR requirements as to avoid granting exclusive monopoly upon works that should otherwise be available for everyone’s free enjoyment. Proposal for changes is being circulated and discussed among patent authorities in the world, for instance, which would add requirements for any patent applicant to include in his/her patent application a sworn statement indicating the use of genetic resources and/or traditional knowledge used within the claimed invention; accompanied with evidence of prior informed consent from the respective country of origin/local community. Such arrangement indeed would create a harmonious synergy between IPR and traditional knowledge as even though derived from development of existing traditional knowledge, an IPR-worthy innovation should not be denied protection it deserves.

 

Speaking about equality between holders of IPR and traditional knowledge especially in terms of economic gain, a fair benefit sharing arrangement can always be a possible solution[2]. An exemplary situation of such is when Aguaruna tribe of Peru succeeded in negotiating a know-how agreement with Searle after passing on medicinal plants and knowledge to the pharmaceutical company, and thus receives annual license fee that would move along with the market value. Another example is the Tropical Botanic Garden Research Institute (TBGRI)’s commitment to share its revenue from licensing a medicinal product based on Jeevani plant to a pharmaceutical company with the tribal Kani people in Kerala State, India.

 

At this end, no matter how far both differ from one another, it is clear that protection of IPR and traditional knowledge may actually work together in a synergy. More importantly, I suddenly remember a quote from an Oscar-winning movie “American Beauty” telling us to never ever underestimate the power of ignorance. The quote seems to me as never been so true before: the most dangerous threat to the sustainability of our natural resources, traditional knowledge and cultural assets we have always been so proud about, is nothing more than our own ignorance.  

---

[1] The minimum term of copyright protection according to the TRIPS Agreement is until 50 years after the death of the author/creator. Indonesia applies this minimum requirement, while USA and Germany have extended the term up to 70 years, enabling Mickey Mouse to keep enjoying copyright protection in his home country up to 2036. Interestingly, lobbies for this term extension were heavily supported by Disney, prompting people to jokingly refer to the Copyright Term Extension Act as the “Mickey Mouse Act”.

 

THE “RASA SAYANGE” INCIDENT AND PRESERVATION OF CULTURAL HERITAGE

(Published in the JIII Yearly Magazine IP COMMUNITY Volume 11 – March 2008)

The recently passing year of 2007 was – to me particularly as an IPR practitioner – quite colorful mostly for nothing but an interesting incident, which has notably elevated Indonesians concern about IPR to a somewhat unprecedented level as ever.

 

 A smell for an inevitable incident was in the air when the Tourism Board of the neighboring country Malaysia, in one of her campaigns for her Truly Asia tourism program, launched an audiovisual commercial advertisement in a website[1]. The commercial would be just fine as a usual tourism if not for a song used as the background. The use of the song, popularly well-known in Malaysia as “Rasa Sayang” and in Indonesia as “Rasa Sayange”, soon triggered a nationwide public outcry in Indonesia as the nation acknowledges the song is one of its nationally acclaimed folksongs particularly originating from its province of Maluku.

 

 The public outcry further turned out to become accusations that Malaysia has again committed “cultural theft” towards Indonesian cultural assets as many Indonesians had also accused Malaysia before of taking away Indonesian much-prided batik and barongan dance. Not enough with the accusation, no less than parliament members also blamed the government for not doing well enough in protecting national cultural and intellectual assets, and even went as far as suggesting the Indonesian government to take legal action against Malaysia for copyright infringement of the song[2].

 

 The Malaysian authorities indeed rejected the accusation by stating that it never made any claim whatsoever upon the ownership rights of the song. Furthermore, it also contended that the use of the song was primarily based upon the conviction that the song should be a common heritage of the people in Indonesia and Malaysia as well as in other countries with significant presence of Malayan ethnics and language in the region[3].

 

* * * 

 To draw rigid lines of ownerships of cultural assets based such upon merely geopolitical boundaries in the sense of modern day nation-states can be considered as next to impossible to do since the existence of such cultural assets may have long predated the birth of national boundaries. In our present situation, for instance, there must be a multitude of traditional music, arts and knowledge that may have generated through centuries of interaction and thus shared between population as well as ethnic groups inhabiting for generations what is in our present days known as Indonesia and Malaysia. How Indonesian and Malaysian cultures are closely related to each other is quite evident as to the origin of the Indonesian official language, Bahasa Indonesia, which was modeled after an old Northern Sumatran form of Malay language[4], the official language of Malaysia.   

 On the other hand, to draw the ownership borderlines through legal measures of copyright laws may cause the headaches even worse. While Indonesia and Malaysia are both members to the Berne Convention[5] as well as the TRIPS Agreement[6], a fact that may ensure that both countries are at least applying copyright protection at more or less equal level based upon the international standards, the copyright laws measurement is not necessarily suitable to solve the problem in question.

 

One of the main reasons lies in the basic principle of copyright protection itself, or referring to the more general term used in the Bern Convention: protection for literary and artistic works, by which authors of literary and artistic works are granted exclusive right of authorizing, among others, the reproduction of the respective works[7]. Under the Indonesian copyright law this principle is thus reaffirmed, defining Copyright as exclusive rights for the author or the rights holder to do and/or authorize certain actions upon his works[8].

 

Accordingly, the one who can put the most appropriate claim over the song based upon the copyright principles shall be the original composer himself, which is, unfortunately, unknown. The anonymity of the composer at least has been confirmed by the Indonesian side through the Minister of Cultures and Tourism[9], as with the local officials and artists from the province of Maluku[10]. As a matter of fact, Maluku’s claim to be the place of origin of the song is based more upon the people’s traditional familiarity with the song for generations, as well as arguing that the lyrics is of Ambonese dialect that is distinctive to the people of that region, rather than upon valid evidence regarding the identity and origin of the actual composer[11].

 

There is also physical evidence that “Rasa Sayange” was recorded on vinyl by Indonesian state-owned recording company Lokananta dated back to 1962, along with other national and patriotic songs[12]. Those records were then distributed as souvenirs during the 1962 Asian Games that was held in Jakarta. Nevertheless, the composer of the song in the recordings was indicated as “NN”, the common abbreviation for “no name” or unknown.

 

The recording can hardly stand for its own rights in the current dispute, i.e. for Lokananta as the recording company to take legal action based upon the exclusive rights over the sound recordings[13], since a different version of recording is used in the disputed commercial. On the other hand, based upon the Copyright Law provision that the State shall hold copyrights upon published works whose authors are unknown[14], as well as another provision of the Law stating that a publication of a works by a legal entity without indicating the author may render the legal entity to be regarded as the legal author[15], it may be possible that the 1962 recording should serve as an evidence of an earlier publication of the song by the Indonesian government and thus the Indonesian ownership thereof. Still such case is not unchallengeable, however, since there could be evidence for even earlier use and/or publication of the song from the opposite side.     

 In the viewpoint of the copyright protection system, such lack of valid evidence regarding the identity and origin of the song’s actual composer may place doubts upon the arguments that the song was Indonesian in origin since it was composed by Indonesian – or at least by someone who could have been Indonesian since the creation of the song must have taken place before the state of Indonesia have even existed. Therefore, Indonesian claim of sole ownership upon the song would never be an easy case.     

 

With respect to the protection of national cultural assets, the Indonesian Copyright Law in fact has been equipped with provisions that the State shall hold the copyrights over folklores and other common cultural heritage of the people such as stories, tales, legends, songs, handicrafts, choreographies, dances, calligraphies, and other art forms[16]. Under these provisions, all foreign entities wishing to exploit such cultural works shall obtain permission from the designated authorities[17]. However, up to this moment the provision is still to be supported by further implementing regulations.

 

Furthermore, one shall also learn from the “Rasa Sayange” incident that any legal provision to accommodate protection of a nation’s traditional cultural assets shall be designed to work not only at national level, but also through regional or even international framework. As it would naturally be difficult to put strict boundaries over traditional cultural assets that exist around such a close proximity as with Malaysia and Indonesia, it would be better if both as well as other adjoining countries could work together for the arrangement of the utilization and protection of their cultural assets. 

 

* * * 

 

It was actually good to see that the Indonesian government has let wisdom and reasonableness prevailed despite demands from Indonesian public to the government for taking harsh action against Malaysia’s alleged “cultural theft”. At the end of the day, both governments managed to downplay the tension and thus reach a common understanding that the song is rightfully belonged to and shall be shared together by the people of both countries, added by a request made by the Indonesian Minister of Culture and Tourism for Indonesia to be informed and acknowledged whenever Malaysia wish to use its cultural asset[18].

 

On the other hand, the minister also pleaded local governments in Indonesia to pay more attention towards their respective cultural assets as to prevent misappropriation by any non-rightful party. The minister along with the minister of laws of human rights also expects Indonesian local artists to increase their awareness upon the importance IPR protection for their works[19].      

Indeed, the “Rasa Sayange” incident has provided a good momentum for Indonesians to refresh their concern and awareness upon IPR protection, especially with regard to their creative works. On the other hand, I often jokingly ask my friends about how often they heard or saw the song “Rasa Sayange” or other traditional folksongs being performed at the scale of gaining considerable fame and popularity either in radios or television before the incident with Malaysia, to which the reply I mostly have is “hardly ever”.

 

This actually made me think of another great lesson Indonesians should learn from the incident. It would be useless as it would be pointless to provide the strongest possible legal protection, if our cultural assets were only to be embalmed under such protection and thus be forgotten by those who are supposed to own it.

 

At the end, arts, music, songs, and other form of cultural heritage are there not to sit still and later die in posterity, but should be better preserved by being further utilized and developed for the enrichment of the culture and the good of the common.

 

---

[1] http://www.rasasayang.com.my

[2] http://www.bernama.com/bernama/v3/printable.php?id=288075

[3] http://www.detiknews.com/index.php/detik.read/tahun/2007/bulan/10/tgl/04/time/205223/idnews/838098/idkanal/10

[4] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bahasa_Indonesia

[5] http://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/ShowResults.jsp?lang=en&treaty_id=15, Malaysia and Indonesia are members since 1990 and 1997, respectively.

[6] http://www.wto.org/english/thewto_e/whatis_e/tif_e/org6_e.htm, both Malaysia and Indonesia joined the WTO on 1 January 1995.

[7] Article 9, Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works.

[8] Article 2, Law no. 19 of 2002 on Copyrights.

[9] http://www.detiknews.com/index.php/detik.read/tahun/2007/bulan/10/tgl/03/time/103835/idnews/837251/idkanal/10

[10] http://www.detiknews.com/index.php/detik.read/tahun/2007/bulan/10/tgl/03/time/103835/idnews/837251/idkanal/10

[11] http://www.antara.co.id/arc/2007/10/3/gubernur-maluku-bersikeras-lagu-rasa-sayange-milik-indonesia 

[12] http://www.antara.co.id/arc/2007/10/3/gubernur-maluku-bersikeras-lagu-rasa-sayange-milik-indonesia

[13] Article 49(1), Law no. 19 of 2002 on Copyrights.

[14] Article 11(3), Law no. 19 of 2002 on Copyrights.

[15] Article 9, Law no. 19 of 2002 on Copyrights.

[16] Article 10(2), Law no. 19 of 2002 on Copyrights.

[17] Article 10(3), Law no. 19 of 2002 on Copyrights.

[18] http://www.nst.com.my/Current_News/NST/Saturday/Frontpage/2130429/Article/index_html

[19] http://www.detiknews.com/index.php/detik.read/tahun/2007/bulan/10/tgl/03/time/110455/idnews/837268/idkanal/10, http://www.detiknews.com/index.php/detik.read/tahun/2007/bulan/10/tgl/03/time/135051/idnews/837379/idkanal/

SEMINAR ON CUSTOMS MEASURES FOR IPR ENFORCEMENT IN ASIA: ENHANCING KNOWLEDGE, EXTENDING CO-OPERATION

(also published in “AMROOS & PARTNERS IP Update & News” of August 2008 edition)

 

A two-day seminar was held in Jakarta at the end of August 2008 over the topic of Intellectual Property Rights border control and enforcement in Asian countries. The seminar is held as a part of the cooperation initiative launched together by European business organizations in several Asian countries such as China, Indonesia, Malaysia, South Korea and Vietnam under the title of “Asia-Invest ALLIANCE: The European Business Organization’s IPR Protection Project”.

Papers and speeches from various speakers representing government officials, public, and private sectors in China, Indonesia, Malaysia and Vietnam were presented during the seminar as to provide highlights on current situation of border control measures in the enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights in each different country as seen from each presenter’s perspective.

For Indonesia in particular, the need for strong and effective enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights through border control measures has actually been accommodated under the Law no. 7 of 2006 concerning Customs. According to Article 54 of the Law, it is possible for Customs officials to suspend the release of imported or exported goods from the Customs Area if the goods are suspected to be trademark or copyright infringing goods based upon sufficient evidence.

The suspension, however, may only be executed upon a warrant issued by the Head of the Commercial Court following a request by the respective trademarks or copyrights owner, which must be accompanied by sufficient evidence on the alleged trademark or copyright infringement, evidence of trademark or copyright ownership, sufficiently detailed description of the goods in question, and bond in certain amount. Upon receiving the warrant, the Customs Official shall notify the exporter, importer, or the owner of the goods in question regarding the suspension order. The suspension itself shall last for ten working days and can be additionally extended to another ten-working-days period subject to a further warrant from the Head of the Commercial Court.

Additionally according to Article 62 of the same Law, Customs Official is also authorized to take self-initiative in its official capacity for detaining imported or exported goods if strong evidences are apparent that the goods in question are results of trademarks or copyrights infringement. Usually such actions is carried out by undertaking random physical checking upon exported or imported goods in the Customs Area, and comparing the goods in actual finding with what was declared in submitted export or import documents.  

While so far the Customs Office in Indonesia in fact has already taken some measures in line with its authority, it is apparent that there is more to be done in order to make Intellectual Property Rights enforcement efforts through border control measures more effective. Moreover, customs measures against IPR infringing goods other than copyrights and trademarks are still to be regulated by a further Government Regulation, which is yet to be promulgated up to this moment.

The seminar on IPR border control and enforcement surely provided a precious opportunity for the Indonesian Customs Office to see and compare about how border control measures in respect of IPR enforcement are carried out by their counterparts in other countries of the region. Being a perfect medium to enhance knowledge apart,  this shall also be seen as a very good starting point in extending cooperation among Asian countries in terms of maximizing customs and other border control measures for the improvement of IPR protection in the region.

(pr)

INNOVATION FLOURISHES AMIDST LOW ON FUNDING

(also published in “AMROOS & PARTNERS IP Update & News” August 2008 edition)

Lembaga Ilmu Pengetahuan Indonesia (LIPI – The Indonesian Institute of Sciences), the state non-departmental agency for undertaking scientific researches, recently exhibited around a hundred of inventions resulted from its own research activities through 2003-2007 in a four-day event of LIPI Expo 2008 held in Jakarta on August 4-6, and was formally opened by the Vice President of the Republic of Indonesia, Mr. Jusuf Kalla.

The Expo was held as to commemorate the 41^st anniversary of the agency as well as the 63^rd anniversary of the nation’s independence and centennial anniversary of the National Awakening movement launched back in 1908 as a part of the nation’s struggle to free them from foreign colonization.

The 100 inventions exhibited at the event are mostly patented or being applied for patent at the Indonesian Patent Office. The Head of LIPI claimed that in general Indonesia’s capacity for science and technology is not yet well-developed and still relatively inferior compared to other countries. Therefore, as he further claimed, the four-day expo held by LIPI can be seen as an effort to reinvigorate the nation’s efforts to build up its capacity in science and technology as well as to display outcomes of highlighted research activities that may be utilized for common daily and industry needs alike.

As a part of the commemoration, LIPI also awarded two Inventor’s Awards upon patented inventions invented by its in-house researchers. One being a process for producing seeds of Sengon (Paraserianthes falcataria) plant; while the other a device for phototherapy purpose.

According to the regular data released by the Indonesian Patent Office, patent applications filed by local applicants at the IPO was experiencing steady increase within the period of 2003-2006 while slightly declining in 2007, with the average of 245 applications per year, and albeit still only contributing 5-10% from the total number of patent applications filed during those years. The number, however, rise significantly within the ongoing year of 2008, with the amount of local applications filed at the IPO up to July this year has already exceeded 90% of the average full-year figures from the previous five-year period.

The good news on the number of local applications is nevertheless still unparalleled by the number of local applicants filing outside Indonesia, whether using Paris Convention or PCT mechanism. From 2003 up to July 2008, for instance, the Indonesian Patent Office recorded that only 22 PCT applications were filed by local applicants. Many cited funding as the main reason behind such a low rate on foreign applications made by local inventors, in particular since applying for patent protection is still seen by local innovative entrepreneurs as a costly burden for their commonly minimum financial capacity.

There are many works to be done indeed to provide the most efficient and effective way as to assists local inventors and entrepreneurs alike to benefit from patent protection worldwide as well as locally. It is indeed a difficult yet not impossible task for everyone in the field to fulfill, within which the need for synergy between all related sectors is beyond any question.

(pr/www.lipi.go.id)

RECENTLY UNVEILED: DRAFT FOR THE BILL ON THE PROTECTION OF TRADITIONAL KNOWLEDGE AND TRADITIONAL CULTURAL EXPRESSIONS

(also published in “AMROOS & PARTNERS IP Update & News” August 2008 edition)

The Indonesian government is currently working on a new law that would provide sui-generis legal measures to protect the nation’s priceless cultural heritage of traditional intellectual assets against misappropriation. The first official draft of the Bill, aptly named Intellectual Assets Protection and Utilization of Traditional Knowledge and Traditional Cultural Expression (TK-TCE), was unveiled to public for the first time recently in mid-July 2008 as a Public Expose Forum for the proposed law was held in Jakarta by the Directorate of Legislation, Department of Laws and Human Rights, after being prepared by a team comprising experts from the Directorate General of Laws and Human Rights, the Department of Culture and Tourism, as well as IPR organizations and several academic institutions.

The proposed law departs from recognition upon the affluence of TK-TCEs emerging from numerous ethnical groups that inhabit the Indonesian archipelago for centuries, which must be seen not only as cultural heritage significant only to each traditional community to whom any particular TK-TCE belongs, but also as intellectual assets of commercial values that may attract locals and foreigners alike. Using this perspective, it is apparent that misappropriation of TK-TCEs by outsiders in the form of commercial exploitation to the detriment of the beholding traditional communities is at risk.  

Allegedly, there have been a number of instances upon which many Indonesians feel that their TK-TCEs have been misappropriated by foreign entities for economic purposes without any fair compensation given to the actual stake holders. Some foreign countries, for instance, is known to have granted patent protection upon innovation based upon tempe, a traditional Indonesian protein-high food made from cultured soya beans. Other instances may also include some patents for medicine and cosmetic substances filed abroad by foreign entities that were yet based upon natural formula known to and developed by traditional communities.

Demands on adequate protection of TK-TCE once again surfaced recently when Malaysia used a song entitled Rasa Sayange, which most Indonesians believe to be one of the folk-songs originated from the Moluccas region in eastern Indonesia, in their official tourism website. This incident appeared to culminate many previous allegations that Malaysia had copied Indonesian cultural heritages such as batik, angklung (pentatonic musical instrument made from bamboo), and reog dances. While it is not so simple to determine on who actually owns what due to close proximity as well as long history of interaction between the two nations, both governments eventually managed to play down the increasing tension and reached an understanding as to view the song in particular as a shared common heritage and thus emphasized on the need to inform each other whenever one wishes to undertake commercial exploitation of such cultural products.

Still this incident alarmed the Indonesian public about the lack of proper and effective protection towards national cultural heritage especially the intangible intellectual assets thereof, in contrast to the ever increasing strictness and enforcement of the IPR law regimes following Indonesia’s accession to the TRIPS Agreement.

Article 10 of the Law no. 19 of 2002 concerning Copyrights actually tries to provide a protection mechanism under copyright regimes as according to the Article the state shall hold the copyrights of national folklores and other common cultural heritages, and that all non-nationals who wish publish or copy such cultural products must at first obtain permission from the government. While the Government Regulation regulating further implementation details of this article has yet to arrive, many see that copyright or other existing modern IPR regimes is an unsuitable answer to the actual question considering the eminent contradictions in the natures and values of cultural heritage assets as compared to those of new inventions and/or creations protected under the IPR regimes.

The proposed law as can be seen in the first draft of the Bill instead tries to address the cultural intellectual assets protection issue using different approach from mainstream IPR protection system. Traditional knowledge and traditional cultural expression (TK-TCE) is hereby treated as intellectual assets which priceless values shall be maintained and shared for inter-generations of the common good. Using this approach therefore exclusive monopoly or private appropriation of TK-TCE is definitely out of question.

The Draft proposes that a form of custodianship, in place of the otherwise proprietary ownership under the mainstream IPR regimes, over any particular TK-TCE shall be reserved by traditional communities within which said TK-TCE has so far been maintained and nurtured in traditional and communal senses. The term “utilization” is also introduced to represent the application or implementation of any particular TK-TCE outside of its tradition context, and shall cover any act of publication, reproduction, dissemination, broadcast, alteration, transformation, citation, adaptation, distribution, rental, sale, making available to public, and communication to public.

It can be seen that basically the proposed law emphasizes in two primary missions for the government to carry out. The first being the build-up of a national database of TK-TCEs that can be identified as belong to traditional communities in Indonesia. The database for each documented TK-TCE must contain description of the respective TK-TCE substantially, and shall record any utilization thereof.

Secondly, it is to build a system to prevent misappropriation by prohibiting utilization of Indonesian TK-TCEs by foreigners without formal license issued by the district-level government, the province-level government, or the Government Minister in-charge at national level depending on the scope of the each TK-TCE they wish to utilize. Request for being granted such license must be submitted to the Government Minister in-charge who will in turn employ a Board of Expert on TK-TCE to provide recommendation that will be forwarded to the right authority.

As for Indonesian nationals or legal entities, an agreement of consent must at first be reached with the respective custodian before a particular TK-TCE can be commercially utilized. The proposed law would also employ protection similar senses to that of Moral Rights in Copyrights as to prevent misattribution caused by any failure to appropriately identify the source of any particular TK-TCE, and to prevent any particular TK-TCE being utilized in the manner detrimental to the traditional communities to whom the utilized TK-TCE belongs.

Being the first specific proposed legislation aimed at protecting the intellectual asset of TK-TCE, the draft of the Bill received mostly positive response from the audience of the Public Expose Forum. However, some notes and concerns were also raised in the forum. One of the concerns speaks for the definition used in the proposed law with regard to Traditional Knowledge and Traditional Cultural Expressions since evidently the draft has yet to reach the most appropriate formula for such definitions while there is also suggestion to refer to definitions set by WIPO.    

There is also concern on the need of more definitive rules to determine the appropriate custodian for each TK-TCE considering the nature of TK-TCE by which it would be very difficult to establish “which belong to whom” as to avoid any potential horizontal conflicts among different traditional communities over custodianship of one particular TK-TCE.

These notes and concerns left a considerable amount of home works for the drafters in order to make a Bill that can address the arising issues more appropriately. At the end, there is indeed a hope that the nation’s long waiting for a strong and effective law to protect the invaluable assets of traditional knowledge and traditional cultural expressions, without denying any opportunity to share the benefit with other nations of the world, can eventually be fulfilled.