Op-Ed: Indonesias Copyright Bill and the Threat to Media Sustainability

By Suwarjono, Editor-in-Chief of Suara.com

The sustainability of the media industry and journalism must be protected. But the means must be carefully chosen. In the pursuit of uncertain royalty payments, media organisations must not end up losing traffic, advertising revenue and access to readers, while local media are pushed further to the margins.

Bob Hasan, Chair of the Indonesian House of Representatives’ Legislative Body, has set 17 December as the target date for completing deliberations on the Copyright Bill. One notable feature of the proposed legislation is the inclusion of journalistic content among works entitled to legal protection. But will the Copyright Bill help secure the future of the media industry, or risk making the news ecosystem even more fragile?

As someone working in the media industry, I see news organisations facing pressure from several directions. Advertising revenue is falling, government budget efficiencies are affecting media spending, and advertising budgets are shifting towards social media, affiliate marketers and influencers. Audiences are also changing the way they consume news, while artificial intelligence (AI) is transforming how people search for and access information.

Against this backdrop, the Copyright Bill offers hope that the economic rights of press companies over their journalistic work will be recognised. In principle, this makes sense. Media organisations spend money gathering news, sending reporters into the field, verifying information, editing stories and distributing content. It is reasonable for such work to have economic value.

However, a much more important question remains: if the Copyright Bill becomes law, will royalties genuinely strengthen media businesses, or could they further damage the news ecosystem? What will happen to content distribution, website traffic, programmatic and direct advertising revenue, and the public's ability to access journalism? These are all part of an existing ecosystem that must be taken into account. What if a policy intended to deliver benefits ends up doing more harm than good?

Chasing Royalties Must Not Come at the Expense of Traffic and Revenue

Digital media businesses in Indonesia do not generally rely on selling content directly to readers. Subscription-based models remain limited, meaning website traffic is one of the main assets supporting their revenue. Publishers monetise that traffic through various forms of advertising, including programmatic, direct and network advertising. The more visitors a website attracts, the greater its potential advertising income.

One of the biggest sources of traffic for news websites is Google's ecosystem, particularly Google Search and Google Discover. Social media platforms such as Facebook and X also direct readers to publishers' websites through links.

Some news organisations have also established partnerships with platforms, including Google News Showcase and Facebook Page monetisation programmes. This means the relationship between publishers and platforms is not always one of unilateral content extraction. Distribution and monetisation arrangements already exist and contribute to the sustainability of news businesses.

If new rules are introduced, will the royalties received be enough to compensate for any loss of traffic and advertising revenue? What about existing commercial partnerships? These questions require further discussion, supported by clear simulations of how a royalty system would work in practice.

Big Publishers May Gain Opportunities, but Smaller Outlets Could Be Left Behind

Copyright protection for journalism could benefit large media organisations. Publishers with original content, in-depth reporting, investigative journalism, extensive archives and stronger bargaining power may be better positioned to negotiate licences and secure additional revenue from platforms and AI companies.

But these benefits are not guaranteed. Large publishers could also lose out if changes to content distribution reduce their traffic and advertising revenue by more than the royalties they receive. Negotiations, administration and monitoring the use of content would also create additional costs.

The risks could be greater for local media and smaller publishers. Even if they negotiate collectively, their content output and traffic are relatively limited, while many outlets report on the same events. Dozens of news organisations may cover the same road accident, local government policy or statement by a public official. The underlying facts will naturally overlap. Which reports would qualify for royalties? Would all coverage be eligible, only original work, or only content demonstrably used for commercial purposes?

Copyright law generally protects the expression of a work, rather than facts or ideas alone. Clear definitions and implementation mechanisms are therefore essential to prevent overlapping claims and costly disputes.

There is another risk: if payments are channelled through collective management organisations, additional administration, operating fees and minimum payment thresholds could make the system disproportionately expensive. Royalties received by smaller publishers might be negligible, or not worth the cost of claiming them. Without a proportionate framework, large media organisations could capture some of the benefits while smaller outlets are left dealing with the paperwork.

Similar concerns have emerged in the music industry, where some songwriters, performers and other rights holders have struggled to claim payments because of the small sums involved.

The Rules Must Not End Up Favouring AI Systems

The issue becomes more urgent as AI tools summarise news and answer users' questions without necessarily directing them to the original website. Journalistic content may be used to generate answers, while publishers lose opportunities to attract visitors and earn advertising revenue.

This is where copyright protection should play a meaningful role. However, the rules must distinguish between different uses of content, including AI training, indexing, republication, summarisation and the generation of answers that may replace visits to the original source.

Where a licence is required, payment mechanisms must be clear. Attribution and links to original sources should also be encouraged so that readers can still find and access the journalism behind the information they receive.

Without careful regulation, the worst-case scenario is that publishers lose traffic and advertising revenue while royalties from AI companies fail to compensate for the economic value lost. For local media, this could pose a serious threat to business sustainability.

What the Government and Parliament Should Consider

The Copyright Bill must be discussed with the broadest possible range of stakeholders, particularly those who will be affected by its implementation. Copyright rules should not focus solely on calculating the value of content while overlooking the financial viability of the businesses producing it. Policymakers must carefully consider which matters belong in the law and which are better addressed through other mechanisms.

Four priorities deserve serious consideration.

First, an economic impact assessment must be conducted before the rules take effect. This should calculate the potential value of royalties alongside the risks of reduced traffic, advertising revenue and existing platform partnerships. Large publishers, local media and smaller outlets must all be represented, rather than allowing the assessment to be shaped primarily by organisations with greater bargaining power.

Second, the legislation must clearly define which journalistic works qualify for protection and which uses require payment. Facts, quotations, links, original reporting and content used by AI systems should not be treated as if they were all the same. Clear criteria are necessary to prevent disputes and overlapping claims.

Third, direct business-to-business agreements should be considered as a preferred payment mechanism, rather than automatically routing payments through collective management organisations. Existing commercial partnerships between news publishers and platforms demonstrate that direct arrangements are already possible. Any framework should allow different models to operate where appropriate, with transparency and fair terms.

Fourth, the sustainability of news distribution must be protected. Significant platform policy changes that affect traffic should be accompanied by greater transparency and consultation with publishers. The aim should not be to force platforms to distribute every news story, but to avoid changes that harm the wider news ecosystem without adequate consideration of their consequences.

Ultimately, the Copyright Bill must balance protection for creative work, economic fairness for publishers, the public's interest in accessing information and the sustainability of news distribution in the digital age.

Media organisations should receive fair compensation for their journalism. But copyright protection must not narrow the distribution of news or make publishers' sources of revenue even more fragile.

The media industry must not win the battle over royalties only to lose the war for traffic and readers. Nor should a new system create opportunities for large publishers while leaving local media with fewer readers and less income.

What needs protecting is not only the rights attached to journalism already produced, but also the ability of media organisations to keep producing journalism tomorrow. Without sustainable media businesses, copyright may remain protected on paper, while the newsrooms responsible for producing journalism find it increasingly difficult to survive.