Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
The rise of subscription-based streaming services has been accompanied by the unofficial sale of premium accounts through social media and digital marketplaces in Indonesia. Although such practices are commonly labelled illegal, the label does not automatically establish criminal liability. This study addresses two issues: first, how difficulties in digital evidence and offender anonymity constrain criminal enforcement, and the standing of electronic evidence in linking offenders, accounts, transactions, and copyright-related objects; second, how criminal liability of sellers of illegal premium streaming accounts is constructed under the Copyright Law, and where its limits lie in relation to Terms of Service violations and offences under the Electronic Information and Transactions Law. Using normative legal research with statutory and conceptual approaches, the study analyses primary legal materials and secondary literature through descriptive-analytical qualitative analysis. The findings show that digital infringement leaves no physical trace, so proof depends on authentic, intact, and relevant electronic evidence supported by digital forensics. Criminal liability under the Copyright Law arises only when the act is committed without right or permission, relates to economic rights over protected works, including computer programs, is carried out for commercial use, involves fault and capacity to be held accountable, and is proven by valid electronic evidence. Violations of Terms of Service remain contractual, while the Electronic Information and Transactions Law applies only when its prohibited elements are met. The study contributes a framework linking digital proof with criminal liability in digital copyright enforcement.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Balqis et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: