His alleged offense was submitting a proposal to create village profile videos for Rp 30 million per village, a price that auditors later claimed should have been only Rp 24.1 million. Even more astonishing, an administrative audit valued crucial components of his creative work—namely concept development, editing and dubbing—at "zero rupiah".

This is not just a legal case; it is a fundamental clash between outdated economic reasoning and the reality of creative industries. It is a clash that threatens the future of Indonesia’s creative economy. Amsal's acquittal is a victory for justice, but it does not resolve the structural vulnerabilities that placed him at risk in the first place.

Neoclassical economics rests on three assumptions: rational preferences, utility maximization and equal access to information (Purnomo & Kristiansen). These assumptions work reasonably well for commodity goods but collapse when applied to creative work.

Creative products possess what economists call "symbolic value"; they are experiential goods whose worth cannot be reduced to simple cost-plus calculations. The value of a village profile video encompasses aesthetic quality, cultural representation, storytelling craft, technical expertise and the videographer's unique creative vision. These elements resist standardization precisely because creativity, by definition, is non-routine and original.

When auditors assigned "zero rupiah" to Amsal’s concept and editing, they committed what economic theory identifies as a category error: applying commodity logic to creative-intuitive work. Unlike creative-rational industries (such as commercial advertising) where profit maximization dominates, creative-intuitive work involves a "joint maximand"—the simultaneous pursuit of artistic integrity, professional reputation and financial sustainability (Throsby; Purnomo & Kristiansen).

The Amsal case exemplifies "information asymmetry", a situation where one party lacks the knowledge to properly evaluate a transaction. In creative markets, this asymmetry is structural. Buyers—in this case, village governments—typically lack the expertise to assess quality and appropriate pricing before purchase. They must rely on the producer’s professional judgment.