DOI: https://doi.org/10.14710/lr.v20i1.62089

Integrating IPR Integrity and Freedom of Expression: A Normative Analysis

*V. Henry Soelistyo Budi orcid scopus  -  Faculty of Law, Universitas Pelita Harapan, Indonesia
Matahari Girodon-Hutagalung orcid  -  Faculty of Law, University of Amsterdam, Netherlands
Jovita Irawati orcid  -  Faculty of Law, Universitas Pelita Harapan, Indonesia
Open Access Copyright 2024 LAW REFORM under http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0.

Citation Format:
Abstract

Algorithm as a digital innovation plays a crucial role in facilitating communication and public discourse. Its utilization is a significant issue that must be carefully analyzed to ensure it doesn’t impede key human rights, specifically the right to freedom of expression. The widespread use of digital platforms has created an urgency to examine this issue. The purpose of this study is to analyze the interaction between algorithms as digital innovations, their protection through the relevant IPR regimes, and their implications on freedom of expression. Through normative legal research methods and a statutory approach, this research finds that among various intellectual property regimes, the patent system offers the best potential for balancing the protection of algorithmic innovations with transparency. However, the analysis also reveals that current patent regulations still lack certain provisions to adequately safeguard freedom of expression in relation to patented algorithms. This research offers a proposed model of development that can be utilized to improve Indonesia’s protection of the right to freedom of expression through the patent regime, while also protecting algorithms as a key digital innovation.

Fulltext View|Download
Keywords: Algorithm; Human Rights; Freedom of Expression; Intellectual Property Rights

Article Metrics:

Article Info
Section: Research Article
Language : EN
Recent articles
Environmental Damage: Community Lawsuit Against The Government Over Industrial Business Licenses Optimizing the Role of State Administrative Court Decisions in State Financial Recovery The Dynamics of Government Fiscal Policy Post COVID-19 Pandemic in Indonesia (Legal Analysis of Government Regulation instead of Law Number 1 Year 2020) Harmonizing the Rules: “A Socio-Legal Analysis of FIFA Stadium Safety and Security Standards and Indonesian Football Regulations – Aftermath Kanjuruhan Tragedy" Incongruence in the Definition of Land Rights in National Agrarian Law: A Path to Legal Uncertainty Guidelines for Implementing Imprisonment Sentences with Single Formulation (A Critique of Book I of the National Criminal Code) More recent articles
Most cited articles
URGENSI REKONSTRUKSI HUKUM E-COMMERCE DI INDONESIA PERLINDUNGAN HUKUM TERHADAP KONSUMEN DALAM TRANSAKSI E-COMMERCE PENGATURAN KAWASAN KESELAMATAN OPERASI PENERBANGAN : STUDI TENTANG PELAKSANAAN KEWENANGAN PEMERINTAH DAERAH DALAM MENGENDALIKAN PEMBANGUNAN DAN BENDA TUMBUH DI KAWASAN KESELAMATAN OPERASI PENERBANGAN BANDAR UDARA AHMAD YANI SEMARANG GLOBALISASI LESBIAN, GAY, BISEKSUAL, DAN TRANSGENDER (LGBT): PERSPEKTIF HAM DAN AGAMA DALAM LINGKUP HUKUM DI INDONESIA PRIVATISASI BADAN USAHA MILIK NEGARA More cited articles
  1. Masnun, Muh Ali., & Astanti, Dilla Nurfiana. (2020). Urgensi Pembatasan Hak Eksklusif Paten Covid-19 Melalui Penerapan Lisensi Wajib Di Indonesia. Jurnal Komunikasi Hukum (JKH), Vol.6,(No.2),pp.456–464. https://ejournal.undiksha.ac.id/index.php/jkh/article/view/28096
  2. Alves, Artur de M. (2018). Platform Humanism and Internal Opacity. Digital Culture & Society, Vol.4,(No.2),pp.107–136. https://doi.org/10.14361/dcs-2018-0207
  3. Ananny, Mike., & Crawford, Kate. (2018). Seeing without knowing: Limitations of the transparency ideal and its application to algorithmic accountability. New Media and Society,Vol.20,(No.3),pp.973–989. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444816676645
  4. Anggraeni, Tantri., Saputra, Gilang., Hasnah, Ulpah Nur., & Putri, Rihasi Nazah Ruhimat. (2023). Ancaman Terhadap Demokrasi: Mengatasi Populisme dan Otoritarianisme. Advances in Social Humanities Research, Vol.1, (No.4), pp.249–257. https://adshr.org/index.php/vo/ article/view/28
  5. Ardiansah., & Ismail, Syaimak Binti. (2023). Deviant Sects in the Context of the Right to Practice Religion: A Critical Study of Its Position in the Constitutions of Indonesia and Malaysia. Journal of Law and Sustainable Development, Vol.11,(No.12),pp.1-28. https://doi.org/10.55908/sdgs.v11i12.1373
  6. Arıcıoğlu, Ebru., & Ucan, Okyay. (2015). Intellectual Property Rights and Economic Growth in Europe. Çukurova Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, Vol.24, (No.2), pp.123–136. https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/cusosbil/issue/32044/354203
  7. Aswandi, Bobi., & Roisah, Kholis. (2019). Negara Hukum dan Demokrasi Pancasila dalam Kaitannya dengan Hak Asasi Manusia (HAM). Jurnal Pembangunan Hukum Indonesia, Vol.1,(No.1),pp.128–145. https://doi.org/10.14710/jphi.v1i1.128-145
  8. Barrosoa, Luís Roberto., & Barroso, Luna van Brussel. (2023). Democracy, Social Media, and Freedom of Expression: Hate, Lies, and the Search for the Possible Truth. Chicago Journal of International Law, Vol.24, (No.1), pp.51–70. https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/cjil/vol24/iss1/3/
  9. Budi, V. Henry Soelistyo. (2019). Policy Study in Indonesia’s Patent Legal System. Law Reform, Vol.15,(No.2),pp.206–224. https://doi.org/10.14710/lr.v15i2.26179
  10. Burhan, Muqbil., Singh, Anil K., & Jain, Sudhir K. (2017). Patents as proxy for measuring innovations: A case of changing patent filing behavior in Indian public funded research organizations. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Vol.123, pp.181–190. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2016.04.002
  11. Burk, Dan L. (2018). Patents and the First Amendment. Washington University Law Review,Vol.96,(No.2),pp.197–263. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3119362
  12. Calvin, C. (2020). Ministries of Truth: Free Speech and the Tech Giants. Journal of Business, Entrepreneurship, and the Law, Vol.13, (No.1), pp.35–70. https://digitalcommons.pepperdine. edu/jbel/vol13/iss1/2/
  13. Chiang, Tun-Jen. (2018). Patents and Free Speech. Georgetown Law Journal, Vol.107, (No.2), pp.309–363. https://www.law.georgetown.edu/ georgetown-law-journal/in-print/volume-107/volume-107-issue-2-jan-2019/patents-and-free-speech/
  14. Cokorde, Istri Dian Laksmi D. (2021). Aspek Hukum Kebebasan Berpendapat dan Berekspresi. Yustitia,Vol.15,(No.1),pp.26–34. https://ojs.unr.ac.id/index.php/yustitia/article/view/698
  15. de Laat, Paul B. (2022). Algorithmic decision-making employing profiling: will trade secrecy protection render the right to explanation toothless? Ethics and Information Technology, Vol.24,(No.2),pp.1–20. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10676-022-09642-1
  16. Disemadi, Hari Sutra. (2022). Lenses of Legal Research: A Descriptive Essay on Legal Research Methodologies. Journal of Judicial Review,Vol.24,(No.2),pp.289–304. https://doi.org/10.37253/jjr.v24i2.7280
  17. Elliott-Harvey, Charlotte. (2021). Freedom of speech at the intersection of racist speech and online political hate speech. European Journal of Communication, Vol.36, (No.3), pp.302–306. https://doi.org/10.1177/02673231211006798
  18. Foss-Solbrekk, K. (2021). Three routes to protecting AI systems and their algorithms under IP law: The good, the bad and the ugly. Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice, Vol.16,(No.3),pp.247–258. https://doi.org/10.1093/jiplp/jpab033
  19. Geofrey, Mahoro Jean Claude., & Roisah, Kholis. (2020). Patenting Deal in Indonesia, Article 20 of The Patent Law in The Political Perspective of International Trade Law. Law Reform, Vol.16,(No.1),pp.19-31. https://doi.org/10.14710/lr.v16i1.30302
  20. Habibah, S. (2021). Hak Kekayaan Intelektual sebagai Wakaf Produktif yang Potensial. Journal of Finance and Islamic Banking, Vol.3,(No.2),pp.80–94. https://doi.org/10.22515/jfib.v3i2.3749
  21. Jaidka, Kokil., Mukerjee, Subhayan., & Lelkes, Yphtach. (2023). Silenced on social media: the gatekeeping functions of shadowbans in the American Twitterverse. Journal of Communication, Vol.73, (No.2), pp.163–178. https://doi.org/10.1093/joc/jqac050
  22. King, Gary., Pan, Jennifer., & Roberts, Margaret E. (2017). How the Chinese government fabricates social media posts for strategic distraction, not engaged argument. American Political Science Review, Vol.111, (No.3), pp.484–501. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055417000144
  23. Kraus, Sasha., Jones, Paul., Kailer, Norbert., Weinmann, Alexandra., Chaparro-Banegas, Nuria., & Roig-Tierno, Norat. (2021). Digital Transformation: An Overview of the Current State of the Art of Research. SAGE Open, Vol.11,(No.3),pp.1–15. https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440211047576
  24. Levine, David S. (2021). Confidentiality Creep and Opportunistic Privacy. Tulane Journal of Technology & Intellectual Property, Vol.20, pp.11–42. https://journals.tulane.edu/TIP/ article/view/2677
  25. Manheim, Karl., & Kaplan, Lyric. (2019). Artificial intelligence: Risks to privacy and democracy. Yale Journal of Law & Technology, Vol.21, pp.106–188. https://yjolt.org/artificial-intelligence -risks-privacy-and-democracy
  26. Mittelstadt, Brent Daniel., Allo, Patrick., Taddeo, Mariarosaria., Wachter, Sandra., & Floridi, Luciano. (2016). The ethics of algorithms: Mapping the debate. Big Data and Society, Vol.3,(No.2),pp.1–21. https://doi.org/10.1177/2053951716679679
  27. Nagy, N. (2024). “Humanity’s new frontier”: Human rights implications of artificial intelligence and new technologies. Hungarian Journal of Legal Studies,Vol.64,(No.2),pp.236–267. https://doi.org/10.1556/2052.2023.00481
  28. Oliva, Thiago D. (2020). Content moderation technologies: Applying human rights standards to protect freedom of expression. Human Rights Law Review, Vol.20, (No.4), pp.607–640. https://doi.org/10.1093/hrlr/ngaa032
  29. Ramadhan, Galih D. (2021). Ruang Lingkup Perlindungan Hak Kekayaan Intelektual Terhadap Video Game. Journal of Intellectual Property,Vol.4,(No.2),pp.1–14. https://journal. uii.ac.id/JIPRO/article/view/22277
  30. Rantona, Safutra., & Husna, Asmaul. (2018). Ketika Agama dan Masyarakat Digital Menjadi Senjata Baru Propagada Politik. Jurnal Sosiologi Agama, Vol.12, (No.2), pp.347–358. https://doi.org/10.14421/jsa.2018.122-09
  31. Raskasih, F. (2021). Batasan Kebebasan Berpendapat Melalui Media Elektronik dalam Perspektif HAM Dikaitkan dengan Tindak Pidana Menurut UU ITE. Journal Equitable, Vol.5,(No.2),pp.147–167. https://doi.org/10.37859/jeq.v5i2.2462
  32. Riemer, Kai., & Peter, Sandra. (2021). Algorithmic audiencing: Why we need to rethink free speech on social media. Journal of Information Technology,Vol.36,(No.4),pp.409–426. https://doi.org/10.1177/02683962211013358
  33. Roisah, K. (2018). Employee-Inventor’s Right to Compensation in Patent Law System in Indonesia and some Countries. Journal of Advanced Research in Law and Economics, Vol.9,(No.7),pp.2415–2424. https://doi.org/10.14505/jarle.v9.7(37).28
  34. Roisah, Kholis., Rahayu., & Rachmanda, Diaz. (2023). The Working Patent and Pharmaceutical Industry Development in Indonesia. Review of Economic and Finance Vol.21. https://doi.org/10.55365/1923.x2023.21.29
  35. Shin, Donghee., & Park, Yong Jin. (2019). Role of fairness, accountability, and transparency in algorithmic affordance. Computers in Human Behavior,Vol.98,pp.277–284. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2019.04.019
  36. Sudirman, Lu., & Disemadi, Hari Sutra. (2021). Comparing patent protection in Indonesia with that in Singapore and Hong Kong. Legality: Jurnal Ilmiah Hukum, Vol.29, (No.2), pp.200–222. https://doi.org/10.22219/ljih.v29i2.15680
  37. Susanto, Muhamad I. (2019). Kedudukan Hukum People Power dan Relevansinya dengan Hak Kebebasan Berpendapat di Indonesia. Volksgeist: Jurnal Ilmu Hukum Dan Konstitusi, Vol.2,(No.2),pp.225–237. https://doi.org/10.24090/volksgeist.v2i2.2844
  38. Taylor, Samuel Hardman., & Choi, Mina. (2022). An Initial Conceptualization of Algorithm Responsiveness: Comparing Perceptions of Algorithms Across Social Media Platforms. Social Media and Society,Vol.8,(No.4),pp.1–12. https://doi.org/10.1177/20563051221144322
  39. Teixeira, Aurora A. C., & Ferreira, Cátia. (2019). Intellectual property rights and the competitiveness of academic spin-offs. Journal of Innovation & Knowledge, Vol.4, (No.3), pp.154–161. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jik.2018. 12.002
  40. Ugwu, I. (2022). Exploring Software Patent as a Possible Solution to Algorithm’s Lack of Transparency. Indonesian Law Journal, Vol.15,(No.1),pp.57–78. https://ejournal.bphn. go.id/index.php/ILJ/article/view/92
  41. Utomo, L. (2021). Criminalizing the Freedom of Expression by State during COVID-19 Pandemic in Indonesia. International Journal of Criminal Justice Sciences, Vol.16, (No.2), pp.415–425. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4756085
  42. Waldman, Ari., & Martin, Kirsten. (2022). Governing algorithmic decisions: The role of decision importance and governance on perceived legitimacy of algorithmic decisions. Big Data and Society,Vol.9, (No.1), pp.1–16. https://doi. org/10.1177/20539517221100449
  43. Walker, Christopher., Kalathil, Shanthi., & Ludwig, Jessica. (2020). The cutting edge of sharp power. Journal of Democracy, Vol.31,(No.1), pp.124–137. https://doi.org/10.1353/jod.2020.0010
  44. Wang, Celeste Tien-hsin. (2018). Is Intellectual Property ‘Disrupted’ by the Algorithm That Feeds You Information in an Era of Fake News? La Revue Des Juristes de Sciences, Vol.15,pp.230–251. https://pure.mpg.de/pubman/faces/ViewItemOverviewPage.jsp?itemId=item_2631726_2
  45. Zerilli, John., Knott, Alistair., Maclaurin, James., & Gavaghan, Colin. (2019). Algorithmic Decision-Making and the Control Problem. Minds and Machines,Vol.29,(No.4),pp.555–578. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11023-019-09513-7
  46. Disemadi, Hari S. (2023). Mengenal Perlindungan Kekayaan Intelektual di Indonesia. Depok: Rajawali Pres
  47. van Dijck, J. (2013). The Culture of Connectivity: A Critical History of Social Media. New York: Oxford University Press
  48. Donovan, James M. (2016). Reciprocity as a Species of Fairness: Completing Malinowski’s Theory of Law. In M. Stępień (Ed.), Bronislaw Malinowski’s Concept of Law (pp. 83–106). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-42025-7_5
  49. Ledvinka, T. (2016). Bronislaw Malinowski and the Anthropology of Law. In M. Stępień (Ed.), Bronislaw Malinowski’s Concept of Law (pp. 55–81). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-42025-7_4
  50. Stępień, M. (2016). Malinowski’s Multidimensional Conception of Law: Beyond Common Misunderstandings. In M. Stępień (Ed.), Bronislaw Malinowski’s Concept of Law (pp. 39–54). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-42025-7_3
  51. Lima, Gabriel., Grgić-Hlača, Nina., Jeong, Jin Keun., & Cha, Meeyoung. (2022). The Conflict Between Explainable and Accountable Decision-Making Algorithms. ACM International Conference Proceeding Series, pp.2103–2113. https://doi.org/10.1145/3531146.3534628

Last update:

No citation recorded.

Last update: 2024-08-30 10:23:54

No citation recorded.