Juridical Anomaly; Criminal Provisions on Copyright Law No. 28 of 2014 (Juridical Anomals related to Determination of Qualification of Delices, Determination of Criminal Sanctions of Criminal, Criminals of Pregnancy, Complaints and Revocation of Credit Co
In order to optimize criminal law enforcement that is redundant, sanctions for piracy of copyright and related rights, music and songs must be rearranged through the judicial review to the Constitutional Court (MK) of the Republic of Indonesia or revised through executive and legislative institutions in the formulation of provisions criminal in the new Copyright Act, in order to obtain certainty regarding the qualifications of the offense and the criminal system in the Copyright Law No. 28 of 2014 concerning Copyright. Whereas, the legislator in formulating the criminal provisions form an inconsistency towards the type of qualification of the offense or the category of the formulation of the provisions of the sentences between the criminal act of "violation" and or the crime of "crime". The legislator is considered negligent, or does not understand the principles of the unity of the harmonization of the criminal legal system, and ignores Appendix II Sub C.3 of Law No. 12 of 2011 number 113 concerning the Establishment of Laws. In the attachment of this Law, it is said, "in formulating criminal provisions it is necessary to pay attention to the general principles of criminal provisions contained in Book I of the Criminal Code, because the provisions in book I apply also to actions that can be punished according to other laws and regulations, except by Law another stipulation (Article 103 of the Criminal Code) ". Another thing that becomes a juridical problem in UUHC No. 28 of 2014, is the absence of certainty in the formulation of criminal provisions whether the type and qualification of offenses are in the criminal provisions. Copyright law makers seem to have doubts in determining whether the perpetrators of piracy or the qualification of entering the offense "offense" or "crime". Because the criminal provisions are not clearly stated in other articles qualification of offense in the criminal provisions. Legislators have violated Attachment II Sub C.3 of Law No. 12 of 2011 number 121, which reads, "in connection with the difference between criminal acts and criminal offenses in the Criminal Code, the formulation of criminal provisions must state clearly the qualifications of acts threatened with the crime is a violation or crime ". Furthermore, to support the purpose of this study, the paradigm used in this study is the post-positivism paradigm. The post-positivism paradigm wants to prove that everything is reality-based (which can be built on experience, observation), the researcher is neutral on the object of research, even though the researcher holding the paradigm remains neutral towards the object of research, but he wants to examine what really happened from things that seem certain. The post-positivism paradigm ontologically conceptualizes reality as it is, but it is realized that in fact many factors influence that reality. As a consequence, ontologically the post-positivism paradigm conceptualizes the law as a set of rules that apply in a society whose implementation will influence factors (economic, political, cultural, and others). Epistemologically, researchers place themselves impersonally, separate from the object of research. The position of the researcher on the object of research is neutral and impartial.