Article Per Year (5 Year)
p-Index From 2021 - 2026
0.947
P-Index
This Author published in this journals
All Journal PADJADJARAN Jurnal Ilmu Hukum (Journal of Law) Law and Justice Widya Yuridika Jurnal Bedah Hukum COMSERVA: Jurnal Penelitian dan Pengabdian Masyarakat Innovative: Journal Of Social Science Research Jaksa: Jurnal Kajian Ilmu Hukum Dan Politik Demokrasi: Jurnal Riset Ilmu Hukum, Sosial dan Politik
Helitha Novianty Muchtar
Universitas Padjadjaran
Arts Humanities Computer Science & IT Economics, Econometrics & Finance Education Industrial & Manufacturing Engineering Law, Crime, Criminology & Criminal Justice Public Health Social Sciences Other

Published : 9 Documents Claim Missing Document
Claim Missing Document
Check
Articles

Found 9 Documents
Search

 1 
Reliability and Security in the Implementation of Digital Health Service Application with the Application of "Reliability Certification or Electronic Certification" based on Indonesian Law Charles Amirul Hanif; Muhamad Amirulloh; Helitha Novianty Muchtar
PADJADJARAN Jurnal Ilmu Hukum (Journal of Law) Vol 8, No 3 (2021): PADJADJARAN JURNAL ILMU HUKUM (JOURNAL OF LAW)
Publisher : Faculty of Law, Universitas Padjadjaran

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar

Abstract

Societies are always changing rapidly. Initially, societies recognize ordinary health services. Now, people acknowledge web application based digital health services. This rapid change raises potential problems such as the sale of illegal drugs, user data theft, and illegal health workers. Unfortunately, the government has not provided actions to respond the issues quickly. There is no law that underlies the implementation of web application. It increases the possibility of other potential problems. Therefore, it is necessary to question the reliability and security of the implementation of the application and the form of legal responsibility of the organizer. This study used a normative juridical method, which is carried out by examining secondary data as the main study material. The study reveals that the reliability and security in the implementation of applications both as an electronic system and as a health service facility can still be optimized. There are two forms of legal responsibility for the application operator, namely liability in the form of obligations and in the form of sanctions. DOI: https://doi.org/10.22304/pjih.v8n3.a6 
Perlindungan Hukum Bagi Production House Terhadap Penyiaran Film Yang Sedang Tayang di Bioskop Tanpa Izin Melalui Media Sosial Alvieta Dewina; Rika Ratna Permata; Helitha Novianty Muchtar
Law and Justice Vol 5, No 1 (2020)
Publisher : Universitas Muhammadiyah Surakarta

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.23917/laj.v5i1.10399

Abstract

Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk meninjau perlindungan hukum bagi rumah produksi sebagai pemegang Hak Cipta serta memberikan pengetahuan mengenai tindakan hukum yang dapat dilakukan oleh rumah produksi terhadap kerugian ekonomi yang ditimbulkan atas tindakan penyiaran film bioskop tanpa izin melalui media sosial. Hukum bersifat dinamis berjalan seirama dengan perkembangan masyarakat dan telah memasuki era digital. Penyiaran film bioskop tanpa izin melalui media sosial merupakan contoh perbuatan melawan hukum telah memasuki dunia digital beserta konsekuensinya. Penelitian ini diharapkan dapat menciptakan kesadaran pada masyarakat bahwa pembajakan dapat menimbulkan kerugian baik materil maupun imateril terutama bagi rumah produksi. Penelitian ini menitikberatkan pada pembajakan yang telah berkembang ke dalam jenis baru, yaitu pembajakan melalui media sosial, khususnya penyiaran kembali melalui Bigo Live. Penelitian ini menggunakan metode analisis data yuridis kualitatif. Metode yang digunakan adalah penelitian literatur yaitu penelitian secara normatif khususnya Undang-Undang Nomor 28 Tahun 2014 Tentang Hak Cipta. Penyiaran kembali film bioskop tanpa izin melalui media sosial merupakan pelanggaran Hak Cipta berdasarkan Undang-Undang Hak Cipta. Penelitian ini juga menyimpulkan bahwa rumah produksi merupakan badan hukum yang dilindungi oleh Undang-Undang Hak Cipta sebagai Pencipta, sehingga rumah produksi mendapatkan pelindungan hukum atas segala bentuk pelanggaran Hak Ekonomi dan Hak Moral Pencipta, termasuk pada dunia digital. Penelitian ini menyimpulkan bahwa pihak rumah produksi selaku pemilik Hak Cipta sebuah karya film dapat melakukan gugatan hukum secara perdata atas kerugian ekonomi berdasarkan Pasal 95 dan 96 Undang-Undang Hak Cipta dan juga secara pidana sesuai dengan ketentuan Pasal 105 Undang-Undang Hak Cipta.
Perlindungan Hukum Terhadap Konsumen Peer To Peer Lending Atas Perbuatan Melawan Hukum Yang Dilakukan Oleh Debt Collector Deza Pasma Juniar; Agus Suwandono; Helitha Novianty Muchtar
Widya Yuridika Vol 3, No 2 (2020): Widya Yuridika: Jurnal Hukum
Publisher : Universitas Widya Gama Malang

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.31328/wy.v3i2.1505

Abstract

The Financial Services Authority (OJK) in carrying out the regulatory function has regulated peer to peer lending in POJK No.77 / POJK.01/ 2016 (POJK LPMUBTI), but in the POJK LPMUBTI does not regulate the use of third parties or debt collector when collecting loans to consumers. This is only regulated in the Code of Conduct created by AFPI and there are still infringement by third parties or debt collectors peer to peer lending to consumers when collecting loans to consumers. This research is to analyse the regulation of the use of third parties or debt collectors in peer to peer lending when collecting loan to consumers and dispute resolution that can be done by consumers against debt collectors who commit unlawful acts in collecting loans. The method used in this article is normative juridical approach, which focuses on examining the implementation of written legal regulations and literatures. The results of this research shows that the Financial Services Authority has not yet regulated about the regulation of the use of debt collectors in peer to peer lending, it is only regulated in the Code of Conduct prepared by AFPI, so that it does not have a legal position thereby causing legal uncertainty. And it also shows that consumers can do dispute resolution in two steps, first complaint through the peer to peer lending providers and the second is through litigation process or non litigation process such as through the Alternative Dispute Resolution Institution (LAPS) provided by the OJK. 
Implementasi Besaran Bunga Peer to Peer Lending Berdasarkan Asas Itikad Baik dalam Pemanfaatan Teknologi Informasi Serta Pengawasannya Anita Khoirunisa; Agus Suwandono; Helitha Novianty Muchtar
Widya Yuridika Vol 3, No 1 (2020): Widya Yuridika: Jurnal Hukum
Publisher : Universitas Widya Gama Malang

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | Full PDF (554.038 KB) | DOI: 10.31328/wy.v3i1.1294

Abstract

Peer to Peer Lending (“P2P Lending”) is one of financial technology products as financing alternative for public. The execution of P2P Lending is under supervision of OJK which regulated in POJK Number 77/POJK.01/2016. OJK appointed AFPI as OJK’s strategic partner who is authorized to make regulations on the execution of P2P Lending for Providers which accommodated in Code of Conduct formed by AFPI. In brief, this Code of Conduct contains rules that have not been accommodated in POJK Number 77/POJK.01/2016, which interest rates regulation is a part of the Code of Conduct. Interest rates in P2P Lending only accommodated in Code of Conduct, but it has not been well obeyed by the Providers because there are still infringement in determining the interest rates which exceed the predetermined standard with the unclear interest rate information notice. Therefore, this article aims to analyse the application of P2P Lending interest rates which only regulated in Code of Conduct. Furthermore, researcher will also analyse the utilization of information technology in P2P Lending to find out whether the implementation of P2P is in accordance with the good faith principle of the use of information technology in Law Number 11 of 2008 concerning Information and Electronic Transactions. The results of this legal research indicate that OJK are expected to set loan interest rates in P2P Lending individually so that it can provide legal certainty for each party in P2P Lending which impacts on the implementation of P2P Lending.
PERLINDUNGAN MEREK TERKENAL ATAS PENDOMPLENGAN REPUTASI (THE TORT OF PASSING OFF) KASUS DOMINO’S PIZZA DI INDONESIA AZLIA HANJANI; MIRANDA RISANG AYU PALAR; HELITHA NOVIANTY MUCHTAR
Jurnal Bedah Hukum Vol 4 No 1 (2020): Jurnal Bedah Hukum
Publisher : Fakultas Hukum Universitas Boyolali

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.36596/jbh.v4i1.340

Abstract

Pemilik merek memiliki hak eksklusif untuk menggunakan merek dagangnya dan untuk memberikan lisensi kepada orang / pihak lain untuk menggunakan merek tersebut. Tanpa lisensi dari pemilik merek dagang, jika orang lain menggunakan merek dagang tersebut, itu adalah sebuah pelanggaran. Ada banyak kejadianmerek yang memiliki kesamaan tetapi tidak diperhatikan dengan serius. The tort of passing off berdampak pada kerugian yang menimpa pemilik hak merek. The tort of passing off melindungi merek terkenal sehingga reputasinya tidak disalahgunakan oleh pihak lain.
The Application of Legitimate Expectations to The Investment Legal Framework in Indonesia Dona Regina Napitupulu; Damos Dumoli Agusman; Helitha Novianty Muchtar
Innovative: Journal Of Social Science Research Vol. 3 No. 3 (2023): Innovative: Journal Of Social Science Research
Publisher : Universitas Pahlawan Tuanku Tambusai

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.31004/innovative.v3i3.2211

Abstract

Legitimate Expectation adalah situasi di mana perilaku negara menciptakan ekspektasi bagi investor asing, yang jika tidak terpenuhi, dapat merugikan investasi mereka. Investor asing menyesuaikan tindakan bisnis mereka agar sesuai dengan kerangka hukum domestik yang ditetapkan oleh pemerintah Indonesia untuk memastikan kelancaran kegiatan usahanya. Untuk menarik lebih banyak investasi asing, pemerintah memperkenalkan UU 11/2020 dan amandemennya yang bertujuan untuk merampingkan birokrasi dan melonggarkan pembatasan bagi investor asing. Namun, putusan inkonstitusionalitas bersyarat dijatuhkan terhadap UU 11/2020 oleh MK dan mengharuskan perbaikan dalam waktu dua tahun atau berdampak pada inkonstitusionalitas, menciptakan keraguan di antara calon investor asing dan investor asing yang sudah ada karena adanya ketidakpastian hukum terkait perizinan usaha dan ekosistem investasi. Penelitian ini akan menganalisis penerapan legitimate expectation dalam kerangka hukum Indonesia dan meninjau potensi pelanggarannya. Penelitian ini menggunakan metode yuridis normatif, dengan menggunakan analisis kualitatif terhadap data hukum primer dan sekunder, dan menyimpulkan bahwa legitimate expectation investor asing dapat muncul dari berbagai tindakan pemerintah. Lebih lanjut, kerangka hukum investasi di Indonesia saat ini tidak menunjukkan inkonsistensi yang merugikan, karena perubahan yang dibuat sejauh ini tidak melanggar kewajiban perlindungan investor asing. Oleh karena itu, perlindungan terhadap legitimate expectation hanya dapat diberikan jika perubahan terhadap kerangka hukum bersifat drastis atau tidak wajar.
Analisis Yuridis Pelindungan Paten atas Produk Artificial Intelligence: Studi Komparatif antara Jepang dan Indonesia Muhammad Alhidayah; Rika Ratna Permata; Helitha Novianty Muchtar
COMSERVA : Jurnal Penelitian dan Pengabdian Masyarakat Vol. 3 No. 5 (2023): COMSERVA : Jurnal Penelitian dan Pengabdian Masyarakat
Publisher : Publikasi Indonesia

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.59141/comserva.v3i5.940

Abstract

Perkembangan inovasi dalam transformasi digital turut mendorong kemajuan penggunaan teknologi informasi berupa Artificial Intelligence (AI) atau kecerdasan buatan. Pemanfaatan AI memiliki peran yang signifikan dalam kehidupan sehari-hari sehingga diperlukan pelindungan hukum yang baik terhadap inovasi-inovasi yang berkaitan dengan produk AI, khususnya berkaitan dengan pelindungan hak kekayaan intelektual berupa Paten. Oleh karena itu, pada penelitian ini akan mengkaji terkait pelindungan Paten atas produk AI dengan melakukan studi komparatif antara hukum Paten Jepang dengan hukum Paten Indonesia. Penelitian ini menggunakan metode yuridis normatif yang mencakup pendekatan perbandingan hukum. Hasil penelitian menunjukkan bahwa terdapat permasalahan hukum berupa kekaburan norma pelindungan Paten terhadap produk AI di Indonesia. Sementara itu, Jepang telah memiliki regulasi yang dapat menjamin kepastian hukum terkait pelindungan atas Paten produk AI. Melalui penelitian perbandingan hukum ini diharapkan dapat menjadi suatu sumbangan pemikiran serta masukan bagi pembentuk undang-undang serta pihak-pihak terkait di Indonesia dalam mengakomodir kepastian hukum terkait pelindungan Paten atas produk AI sebagai suatu invensi mutakhir.
Studi Kasus Atas Disparitas Antara Putusan Mahkamah Agung Dengan Putusan Pengadilan Niaga Mengenai Kriteria Merek Terkenal Yang Terjadi Antara Biostime Hong Kong Limited Melawan PT Bogamulia Nagadi Ditinjau Dari UU No 20 Tahun 2016 Tentang Merek Dan Ind Galuh Ajeng Kusumoretno Nugroho; Rika Ratna Permata; Helitha Novianty Muchtar
Jaksa : Jurnal Kajian Ilmu Hukum dan Politik Vol 1 No 4 (2023): Oktober : Jurnal Kajian Ilmu Hukum dan Politik
Publisher : Universitas Sains dan Teknologi Komputer

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.51903/jaksa.v1i4.1411

Abstract

The urgency of the fame of a marks that is currently important makes people more aware to protect well-known marks. In the case of the "Biostime" marks dispute that occurred between H&H Hong Kong Limited and PT Bogamulia Nagadi, there were legal problems regarding the cancellation of the mark which had similarities in essence with the well-known marks. The study was to determine the disparity between the judges considerations in the Supreme Court Decision No. 781/K/Pdt.Sus-HKI/2022 and the Commercial Court Decision No. 48/Pdt.Sus-Merek/2021/PN. Niaga.Jkt.Pst is in accordance with Law Number 20 of 2016 concerning MIG; and assess the accountability of the Directorate General of Intellectual Property of the Ministry of Law and Human Rights based on Law Number 20 of 2016 concerning MIG. This research uses research methods with a normative juridical. This research stage focuses on literature studies using secondary data in the form of primary legal materials, secondary legal materials, and tertiary legal materials. In addition, field studies were conducted by conducting interviews. Based on the results of the study, 2 (two) things can be concluded. First, the disparity between the consideration of Supreme Court Justices and Commercial Court Judges is in the criteria for famous marks. Second, DJKI's responsibility is to comply with and carry out the results of court decisions and provide legal protection for marks that have been officially registered.
Penggunaan Kata Umum Dalam Pendaftaran Merek Pada Sengketa Merek STRONG Antara Hardwood Private Limited Dengan PT. Unilever Indonesia, Tbk. Berdasarkan Undang-Undang No. 20 Tahun 2016 Tentang Merek Dan Indikasi Geografis Fetrya Salsabilla Hanjani; Miranda Risang Ayu Palar; Helitha Novianty Muchtar
Demokrasi: Jurnal Riset Ilmu Hukum, Sosial dan Politik Vol. 1 No. 2 (2024): April : Demokrasi: Jurnal Riset Ilmu Hukum, Sosial dan Politik
Publisher : Asosiasi Peneliti dan Pengajar Ilmu Hukum Indonesia

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.62383/demokrasi.v1i2.98

Abstract

There are provisions regarding trademarks that cannot be registered in Law No. 20 Year 2016, one of which is in Article 20 letter f which states that "Trademarks cannot be registered if they are common names and/or symbols of public property." However, even though there is already a regulation regarding the invalidity of registration of the use of common words in trademarks, there are still many uses of common words as trademarks in Indonesia. This shows that there is still a lack of clarity regarding the parameters of acceptable use of generic words in trademark registration. One of the famous trademark infringement cases using a common word in Indonesia is the case between PT Unilever Indonesia, Tbk. against Hardwood Private Limited with the alleged use of the "STRONG" Trademark with the Supreme Court Decision Number 332 K/Pdt.Sus- IPR/2021. This research aims to discuss the legal action in the settlement of infringement of well-known trademarks that use the word general and the judge's consideration of infringement of well-known trademarks that use the word general based on Indonesian positive law. Based on the research results, the word "STRONG" is an English word that has a strong meaning. Then the word STRONG is a general or generic word that when referring to the explanation in Article 20 of Law No. 20 Year 2016, the word "STRONG" should not be registered as a trademark because it is a common word
Co-Authors Agus Suwandono Alvieta Dewina Anita Khoirunisa AZLIA HANJANI Charles Amirul Hanif Damos Dumoli Agusman Deza Pasma Juniar Dona Regina Napitupulu Fetrya Salsabilla Hanjani Galuh Ajeng Kusumoretno Nugroho Miranda Risang Ayu Palar Muhamad Amirulloh Muhammad Alhidayah Rika Ratna Permata