Indonesia logged 9,263 copyright infringement cases over 20 months—but 98.3% originated from websites that simply reappear with new domain names once blocked. Alexander Sabar, Indonesia's director general of digital space oversight, warned that the problem is escalating. "We're seeing IP violations become increasingly organized and widespread, particularly from illegal websites that keep reemerging with new domains," he said.
Where Pirates Hide
Of the 9,263 cases, 9,109 came from independent websites. The remaining 154 stemmed from other channels, including social media. That distribution defies the common assumption that social media platforms are the main piracy hubs. The reality is simpler: major platforms are easier to police because they have centralized reporting systems. Independent websites, by contrast, can shift domains in hours—and at a cost far lower than the expense of enforcing against them.
Sabar confirmed the priority: "With 9,109 violations, independent websites remain the primary distribution channel for pirated content."
Komdigi says it has deployed automated crawling technology to detect new sites more quickly. But the regulator has released no public data on the average time lag between a site's emergence and its blocking. That figure—if disclosed—would be the real test of how effective real-time monitoring actually is in practice.
Is Blocking Enough?
Blocking a domain suppresses access temporarily, not permanently. The clearest acknowledgment of these limits came from AVISI, the Indonesian Video Streaming Association, which announced a shift in strategy.
Elvira Lestari, AVISI's secretary general, was explicit: "Data shows 98 percent of IP violations occur on websites. AVISI's future strategy will focus on 'Follow the Money'."
That approach targets the money—the digital ads and payment channels that keep piracy sites alive. The logic is straightforward: if advertisers and payment providers stop working with illegal sites, the financial incentive to rebuild domains vanishes along with the revenue. The question is whether Komdigi has the legal authority and cross-agency partnerships—with financial regulators, Bank Indonesia, and ad networks—to execute this approach at scale, or whether it remains an industry initiative lacking formal enforcement mechanisms.
Scale and Economic Impact
The 9,263 cases represent just 0.2 percent of the 4.55 million pieces of harmful content Komdigi processed in the same period. On the surface, that seems negligible. But the statistic is deceptive. A single illegal streaming site can serve millions of viewers who should be paying for legitimate subscriptions. The economic toll—lost revenue for creators and streaming services—far exceeds what the blocking numbers suggest.
Sabar stressed the stakes: "The state must ensure that creators receive appropriate protection for their work."
The issue also intersects with a wider legislative push. The Press Council is gathering input for a proposed copyright law intended to strengthen the press against digital platforms and artificial intelligence—a sign that IP pressure affects multiple industries simultaneously.
Two Indicators That Matter
Komdigi's actual effectiveness can only be measured by two numbers currently unavailable: the "respawn rate"—how many sites return after being blocked and how fast—and concrete evidence that AVISI's "Follow the Money" strategy is working, in the form of named ad network partners, payment processors signing on, and public memorandums of understanding that can be audited. Without those metrics, the 9,263 cases say more about enforcement speed than about whether piracy is actually declining.
