Indonesia Copyright Bill Could Revoke Platform Business Permits; Google, Meta, TikTok Push Back – Tech Times

Google, Meta and TikTok pushed back at a parliamentary hearing in Jakarta on Wednesday against proposed copyright revisions. Google said paying for news links would limit Indonesians’ access to news, Meta said publishers could lose readership, and TikTok asked lawmakers to narrow AI disclosure rules.Lawmakers want a vote before parliament’s December 12 session close, and a July draft would let Indonesia sanction platforms that do not comply, including by revoking local business permits.For readers in Indonesia, the dispute is over who pays when news links and previews appear in search and social feeds. For developers and publishers elsewhere, Indonesia could become the first country in Southeast Asia to incorporate AI in its copyright law.Agung Pamungkas, Google’s Indonesia government affairs and public policy manager, told lawmakers that requiring platforms to pay for showing publishers’ news links would limit how freely Indonesians reach news. Berni Moestafa, Meta’s public policy head in Indonesia, argued that publishers could lose readership traffic, along with advertising and subscription revenue, and that directing readers to an article differs from reproducing or republishing it.The July draft treats link previews and republishing alike. It would require platforms to pay for aggregating, republishing or link-previewing news, and for using it to train AI, with payments flowing through state-supervised collective management organizations to news publishers.Google has pointed to existing commercial ties. In a June statement, it said the proposed restrictions would undermine its News Showcase partnerships with over 30 local publishers. The Indonesian news site Afu.id reported in August that Google had 30 commercial publisher-rights deals plus five AI-training agreements, with outlets such as Antara and Kompas, and an opt-out for publishers.Reuters reported in July that tech giants such as Google could face sanctions including loss of permits if they do not comply with the bill. Asia IP repeated the permit risk in an October 15 analysis.Indonesia has used a similar lever before. In October 2025, it suspended TikTok’s electronic system registration after the company did not hand over all requested data on its livestream feature during national protests. The communications ministry lifted the suspension days later, after TikTok supplied the data.Noudhy Valdryno, TikTok’s head of public policy in Indonesia, told lawmakers that disclosure requirements should not apply when AI only assists a creator rather than fully creating content. He also urged lawmakers to preserve safe-harbor protections, saying platforms cannot reliably determine who owns copyright or holds a license.Safe harbor is a legal shield that spares platforms from liability for users’ infringement if they meet conditions. In US law, Section 512 of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act sets those conditions, including removing infringing material after a valid takedown notice. Google’s June statement similarly argued the draft departs from international platform-liability standards. Reuters’ hearing report did not say which Indonesian provisions TikTok wants kept.TikTok is owned by China’s ByteDance, and as of October 2025 it had more than 100 million accounts based in Indonesia, its second-largest audience worldwide. Article 7 of China’s 2017 National Intelligence Law says all organizations and citizens must support, assist and cooperate with national intelligence work, though legal scholars dispute how far that obligation reaches in practice, and a China Law Translate analysis notes it has no enforcement mechanism. Reuters’ hearing report does not tie that law to the copyright bill; it is background on TikTok’s ownership.Indonesia’s Press Council is asking for a different system than the one the July draft describes. Dahlan Dahi, who chairs the Press Council’s digital and sustainability commission, has proposed a hybrid scheme in which commercial use of journalism by platforms, search engines, aggregators and AI pays royalties either through a collective management body or through direct business-to-business deals.His reasons argue against a collective-only model: news is less evergreen than music, publishers already run direct deals, a collective body would add a new middleman, and an unreliable or opaque body could cost publishers money. State news agency Antara said it hopes any government-facilitated scheme does not cut its existing direct revenue from platforms.Google made a similar request at a July government hearing, according to Voice of Indonesia, proposing that direct deals continue alongside a collective scheme. The Council and Google differ on obligation: Press Council chair Komaruddin Hidayat argued that platforms capture a disproportionate share of the economic value of reporting, and a Bali Joint Statement in October called for fair, transparent and accountable platform rules that do not reduce public access to information.Collective licensing also raises a legal question. Industry groups such as the International Intellectual Property Alliance argue that mandatory collective management must pass the international three-step test for limits on copyright, while a Kluwer Copyright Blog analysis argues the test does not apply to mandatory collective schemes.Reuters’ hearing report does not say Google or Meta would pull Indonesian news. Other countries show how such a standoff can unfold. After Australia’s 2021 bargaining code, Meta said in March 2024 it would not renew its deals with Australian publishers, and Google has since signaled it will not renew some of its own. In Canada, Meta removed news from its platforms in response to the 2023 Online News Act.Indonesia already has Presidential Regulation 32/2024, which addresses platform responsibility for quality journalism. The Asia IP analysis notes the copyright bill would add a framework for remunerating news content through copyright law.The July draft would protect AI-assisted works only if they meet human-involvement criteria, would exclude fully AI-generated works, and left open how much human involvement qualifies. The government and parliament have since agreed that works generated 100 percent by AI get no copyright protection, because AI is treated as a tool.The US has a similar open question. The D.C. Circuit held on March 18, 2025, in Thaler v. Perlmutter, that copyright requires a human author, and the Supreme Court later declined to hear the case. The ruling did not settle how much AI contribution a human-authored work can contain. A Colorado case, Allen v. Perlmutter, in which an artist challenges the Copyright Office’s refusal to register an image made with Midjourney, is pending.The draft would ban using AI to imitate a creator’s “distinctive style”, but Reuters’ account of the draft does not say how style would be measured. IP and entertainment lawyer Ari Juliano Gema warned that the bill appeared to conflate commercial and research use of AI. Singapore takes a different route: according to Music Business Worldwide, its 2021 Copyright Act lets companies copy protected works to train AI, including commercially.The House of Representatives’ Legislation Committee formed a working committee on October 6, chaired by Martin Manurung. On Monday, lawmakers and the intellectual property directorate agreed to speed deliberations so the bill can reach a plenary session before parliament’s sitting period closes December 12. Government negotiators prepared 1,117 review items and 736 explanatory notes, grouped into four clusters: AI and text and data mining, royalty governance, journalistic and artistic works, and enforcement. Asia IP, citing Suara, reported a December 17 target instead.Indonesia will also push the World Intellectual Property Organization to develop global royalty standards at the 49th session of its Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights, which runs from November 30 to December 4. Law Minister Supratman Andi Agtas said much of the implementation of protections for journalistic works will be set in implementing regulations.Three questions remain open as the vote nears: whether payments run through a mandatory collective body, a hybrid with direct deals, or a direct-deal model; whether permit revocation survives in the final text; and whether lawmakers define human input for AI-assisted works.A July draft reviewed by Reuters would require platforms to pay compensation for aggregating, republishing or link-previewing news and for using news in AI training. Payments would go through state-supervised collective management organizations, and platforms that do not comply could face sanctions, including loss of local business permits.Not if AI generated them entirely. The government and parliament have agreed that works produced 100 percent by AI are not protected, while AI-assisted works would qualify only with enough human involvement, a threshold the July draft left undefined.The draft would bar using AI to imitate a creator’s “distinctive style” and would require disclosure of AI use in content. Reuters’ account of the draft does not say how style would be measured.No. The Press Council wants royalties paid through a collective body or direct business-to-business deals, warning that a collective-only system would add a middleman. Google has asked for direct deals to continue alongside a collective scheme, so the sharpest disagreement is over who must pay and whether payment is mandatory, not over direct deals themselves.ⓒ 2026 TECHTIMES.com All rights reserved. Do not reproduce without permission.source