VISION Legal Counsel Suggests ACTION To Propose As Related Parties In The Material Test Of Copyright Law

Vibrasi Suara Indonesia atau VISI (Instagram @vibrasi Suaraindonesia)

Panji Prasetyo said that the application for judicial review submitted by 29 singers who are members of the Indonesian Voice Vibration (VISION) was an action that had to be taken due to noise related to royalties that were noisy in public spaces.

As is known, the 29 singers submitted five articles in Law No. 28 of 2014 concerning Copyright (UUHC) to be tested materially by the Constitutional Court (MK).

Panji said that the party that should have submitted a UUHC judicial review was the All-Indonesian Composter Association (AKSI). The reason is, the association led by Piyu and driven by Ahmad Dhani has a different interpretation.

"This vision was forced, because it should have been an ACTION at the Constitutional Court. They don't want Article 23 paragraph 5, they want articles as they please, even though they went to the Constitutional Court," Panji said when met at his office in Cilandak, South Jakarta recently.

"But I know why they don't go to the Constitutional Court, because they will lose, and they don't have the material to fry anymore. Because their legal basis is all weak," he continued.

Instead of expressing their opinion in the public sphere, said Panji, the Constitutional Court should come to examine their interpretation of articles at UUHC.

"Udah, now prepare the best lawyer, prepare expert witnesses from S2, S3, S4, S5, S6, we will discuss it, we will argue in the Constitutional Court. There are nine judges who really understand the law there," he said.

Panji said that his party did not have the authority to present an ACTION if the application for a judicial review entered the trial stage, but he expressed his willingness if Piyu cs volunteered as a Related Party.

"Yes, they just agreed (to be a Related Party), I'm not the one who wants to play. The rules of the event can be, "said Panji. But stop in public like this. Let's take this to the Constitutional Court, so that we are more productive in the conversation. This is a lot confused, you know, many are sorry, many are afraid.