外文翻译

THE CONCEPT OF AUTHORIZATION (BEZIT) IN SALES AND PURCHASE TRANSACTIONS OF VIRTUAL PROPERTY

Lintang Yudhantaka1; Ninis Nugraheni2 1Faculty of Law, Airlangga University, Surabaya 2Faculty of Law, Hang Tuah University, Surabaya E-mail: lintang.yudhantaka@gmail.com

P79-81

Human society over the world is never apart from things called goods. Goods are always available in every transaction by individuals on their daily and social life. Hence, it makes goods necessary to be arranged. In Indonesia, such thing is set in Book II Burgerlijke Wetboek (later called BW). Based on Article 499 BW, goods are any things and rights that an individual may possess (proprietary right) (Kansil, 1995:157). The most extensive definition of the term “goods” (Zaak) is any thing that may belong to an individual. Such definition poses goods into an object as opposed by subject or individual in the context of law. In narrower setting, goods are defined as those tangible only (Subekti, 2005:60). Some rights adhere to a good, such as proprietary, bezit, and civil rights over othersrsquo; proprietary right (Nurhayani, 2015:192).

The right of goods (zakelijk recht) is absolute rights to an object that gives a direct dominance to an individual on a good wherever it is (Usanti, Lahirnya Hak Kebendaan, Perspektif, Volume XVII, No. 1, Januari 2012: 45). In other words, the law of goods is every legal norm that regulates goods and/or anything related to it. In this case, goods in everything in respect of the definition of goods, the discernment of goods, and proprietary rights and others related to goods and proprietary rights (Usman, 2011:34).

The law of goods is set in Book II BW with dwingenrecht characteristic (i.e., compelling/reclusive). As the result, it has a reclusive system that individuals may not organize the rights of goods (Zakelijk Recht) but as regulated under Book II BW, another regulation or jurisprudence. Therefore, people may only organize the rights of goods as mentioned in that regulation. That is, the number of such rights is limitative on what is mentioned in regulation or at least jurisprudence (Usman, 2011:38). As the time goes by, however, the development of technology makes the function and existence of goods has shifted from conventional to digital or virtual. Such goods are known as virtual property.

No definition is set by Indonesia legislation on virtual property. Nevertheless, some experts on virtual property have proposed their thoughts as reference. Michael Meehan, for instance, defined virtual property as “those which are created within a virtual world and which do not have an external existence outside of that environment” (Meehan, Virtual Property: Protecting Bits in Context, 13 Rich JL amp; Tech, Volume XIII, Issue 2, 2006: 7). For him, virtual property is made in a virtual world and has no existence out of its virtual field (Wayne, Theft In The Digital: Can You Steal Virtual Property?, Canterbury Law Review, Volume 17, Issue 2, 2011: 361).

Peter Brown amp; Richard Raysman (Brown amp; Raysman, Property Right in Cyberspace Games and Other Novel Legal Issues in Virtual Property, The Indian Journal of Law and Technology, Vol.2, 2006: 89) argues that virtual property is individualrsquo;s assets or things that individual may possess and the ownership of those things is valuable. Such valuability refers to economic value that can be exchanged by real money through sales and purchase transactions or the agreement of exchange between virtual objects. Again, virtual property is only in virtual world called cyber world.

Joshua A. T. Fairfield (Fairfield, Virtual Property, Boston University Law Review, Vol. 85, 2005: 1048) also emphasizes that virtual property is a code using a computerized system and spread out through internet in such a way and its treatments is simiar to the property in real world.

Recently, a phenomenon of virtual property causes new things to occur, especially in Indonesia legislation. The term virtual itself refers to intangible, and therefore, virtual property is simply defined as intangible property with no physically tangible form. It raises a question of what is virtual property? And How is the position? In addition, any activities associated to such virtual property may carry out a novel legal indication such as the definition of rights to virtual property in sales and purchase transactions, for instance.

世界上的人类社会从来没有脱离过所谓的商品。个人在日常和社会生活中的每一笔交易都有商品。因此，它使货物必须被安排。在印度尼西亚，这样的东西在Burgerlijke Wetboek(后文称为BW)中被设定)。根据BW第499条，货物是个人可能拥有的任何东西和权利（所有权）(Kansil，1995：157)。对“货物”(Zaak)一词最广泛的定义是任何可能属于个人的东西。这一定义将物品置于法律范围内，而不是由主体或个人构成。在较窄的范围内，货物仅被定义为有形货物(Subekti，2005：60)。一些权利是天生具备的，如所有权、bezit和对他人所有权的民事权利(Nurhayani，2015：192)。

商品权(zakelijkrecht)是对一个物体的绝对权利，该物体使一个人在任何地方的商品上直接支配(Usanti，LahirnyaHakebendaan，Perspektif，Volume XVII，No.1，Januari，2012：45)。换言之，货物法是规范货物和/或与其有关的任何东西的每一项法律规范。在这种情况下，货物在所有方面的定义，货物的识别，所有权和其他与货物和所有权有关的权利(Usman，2011：34)。

商品法在BW的第二部分中规定，具有dwingenrecht特性（即强制/排他性）。因此，它有一种封闭的制度，即个人不得组织货物权利(Zakelijk Recht)，而是按照BW的第二部分或其他法律法规或判例的规定。因此，人们只能行使该条例中提到的货物权利。也就是说，权利的数量仅限制于条例或至少判例中提到的内容(Usman，2011：38)。 然而，随着时间的推移，技术的发展使商品的功能和存在从传统转向数字或虚拟。这种商品被称为虚拟财产。

印度尼西亚关于虚拟财产的立法中没有规定任何定义。然而，一些虚拟财产专家提出了他们的想法作为参考。例如，Michael Meehan将虚拟财产定义为“在虚拟世界中创建的、在该环境之外没有外部存在的财产”(Meehan, Virtual Property: Protecting Bits in Context, 13 Rich JL amp; Tech, Volume XIII, Issue 2, 2006: 7)。他认为，虚拟财产是在一个虚拟世界中制造的，并且没有其虚拟领域的存在（Wayne, Theft In The Digital: Can You Steal Virtual Property?, Canterbury Law Review, Volume 17, Issue 2, 2011: 361）。

Peter Brownamp;Richard Raysman(Brown amp; Raysman, Property Right in Cyberspace Games and Other Novel Legal Issues in Virtual Property, The Indian Journal of Law and Technology, Vol.2, 2006: 89)认为虚拟财产是个人的资产或个人可能拥有的东西，这些东西的所有权是有价值的。这种价值性是指通过销售和购买

剩余内容已隐藏，支付完成后下载完整资料

THE CONCEPT OF AUTHORIZATION (BEZIT) IN SALES AND PURCHASE TRANSACTIONS OF VIRTUAL PROPERTY

Lintang Yudhantaka1; Ninis Nugraheni2 1Faculty of Law, Airlangga University, Surabaya 2Faculty of Law, Hang Tuah University, Surabaya E-mail: lintang.yudhantaka@gmail.com

ABSTRACT

Virtual property such as softwares, e-books, and games are commonly seen as things with economic values. The existence of virtual property itself does not only exist in the virtual world or cyberspace, but virtual property is also treated as an object in general. The existence of these virtual property also has the potential to cause problems in the future, especially regarding proprietary rights, due to the absence of regulations governing virtual property. This study discusses the position of bezitter in the authorization of virtual property and the object delivery in sales and purchase transactions of virtual property. Juridical-normative method with statute and conceptual approaches are all applied. The result shows that bezitter is seen as the owner, and thus, a sales-and-purchase transaction as well as the object delivery of virtual property is considered valid and enforceable if it is in accordance to what it has been agreed in End User License Agreement (EULA). The government should make regulations

regarding virtual property immediately in order to minimize problems that arise in the future.

Keywords: authorization (bezit), sales and purchase, virtual property

INTRODUCTION

Human society over the world is never apart from things called goods. Goods are always available in every transaction by individuals on their daily and social life. Hence, it makes goods necessary to be arranged. In Indonesia, such thing is set in Book II Burgerlijke Wetboek (later called BW). Based on Article 499 BW, goods are any things and rights that an individual may possess (proprietary right) (Kansil, 1995:157). The most extensive definition of the term “goods” (Zaak) is any thing that may belong to an individual. Such definition poses goods into an object as opposed by subject or individual in the context of law. In narrower setting, goods are defined as those tangible only (Subekti, 2005:60). Some rights adhere to a good, such as proprietary, bezit, and civil rights over othersrsquo; proprietary right (Nurhayani, 2015:192).

Yustisia Volume 8 Number 1 (January-April 2019)

The Concept Of Authorization ... 79

copy;2019; This is an Open Acces Research distributed under the term of the Creative Commons Attribution Licencee (https://Creativecommons.org/licences/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original works is properly cited.

The right of goods (zakelijk recht) is absolute rights to an object that gives a direct dominance to an individual on a good wherever it is (Usanti, Lahirnya Hak Kebendaan, Perspektif, Volume XVII, No. 1, Januari 2012: 45). In other words, the law of goods is every legal norm that regulates goods and/or anything related to it. In this case, goods in everything in respect of the definition of goods, the discernment of goods, and proprietary rights and others related to goods and proprietary rights (Usman, 2011:34).

The law of goods is set in Book II BW with dwingenrecht characteristic (i.e., compelling/reclusive). As the result, it has a reclusive system that individuals may not organize the rights of goods (Zakelijk Recht) but as regulated under Book II BW, another regulation or jurisprudence. Therefore, people may only organize the rights of goods as mentioned in that regulation. That is, the number of such rights is limitative on what is mentioned in regulation or at least jurisprudence (Usman, 2011:38). As the time goes by, however, the development of technology makes the function and existence of goods has shifted from conventional to digital or virtual. Such goods are known as virtual property.

No definition is set by Indonesia legislation on virtual property. Nevertheless, some experts on virtual property have proposed their thoughts as reference. Michael Meehan, for instance, defined virtual property as “those which are created within a virtual world and which do not have an external existence outside of that environment” (Meehan, Virtual Property: Protecting Bits in Context, 13 Rich JL amp; Tech, Volume XIII, Issue 2, 2006: 7). For him, virtual property is made in a virtual world and has no existence out of its virtual field (Wayne, Theft In The Digital: Can You Steal Virtual Property?, Canterbury Law Review, Volume 17, Issue 2, 2011: 361).

Peter Brown amp; Richard Raysman (Brown amp; Raysman, Property Right in Cyberspace Games and Other Novel Legal Issues in Virtual Property, The Indian Journal of Law and Technology, Vol.2, 2006: 89) argues that virtual property is individualrsquo;s assets or things that individual may possess and the ownership of those things is valuable. Such valuability refers to economic value that can be exchanged by real money through sales and purchase transactions or the agreement of exchange between virtual objects. Again, virtual property is only in virtual world called cyber world.

Joshua A. T. Fairfield (Fairfield, Virtual Property, Boston University Law Review, Vol. 85, 2005: 1048) also emphasizes that virtual property is a code using a computerized system and spread out through internet in such a way and its treatments is simiar to the property in real world.

Recently, a phenomenon of virtual property causes new things to occur, especially in Indonesia legislation. The term virtual itself refers to intangible, and therefore, virtual property is simply defined as intangible property with no physically tangible form. It raises a question of what i

剩余内容已隐藏，支付完成后下载完整资料

资料编号：[270091]，资料为PDF文档或Word文档，PDF文档可免费转换为Word