You are using an outdated browser and your browsing experience will not be optimal. Please update to the latest version of Microsoft Edge, Google Chrome or Mozilla Firefox. Install Microsoft Edge

December 28, 2012

Company Directors Face Civil and Criminal Liability for Software Piracy

Bangkok Post, Corporate Counsellor Column

Company directors can be held liable for software copyright violations in their businesses, even if they are unaware that software piracy is taking place at their companies, according to Thai copyright law.

The Thai Copyright Act of 1994 states that if a juristic person (a company) commits copyright infringement, all directors or managers are jointly liable for the offense. This means that if a company is sued as a first defendant, its authorized directors may also be attached as additional defendants in the case.

Software piracy, which is the copying of software without permission from the copyright holder, continues to occur among businesses in Thailand at an alarming rate. According to the Global Software Piracy Study of International Data Corporation (IDC), Thailand’s software piracy rate was 72% in 2011, with the commercial value of pirated software at up to US$852 million.

Under current copyright law in Thailand, companies, directors, and senior managers found responsible for violations face fines of up to THB 800,000 and/or jail terms of up to four years, plus liability for the actual cost of the software as civil damages. These are extremely serious consequences that no one would want to face, so it is essential for company directors to understand their responsibilities and take action to prevent software piracy.

Downloading and Installation by Employees and Contractors

Liability for copyright infringement may be imposed on an individual who is not a direct, primary participant in the infringement. The doctrine of vicarious liability exists for the employee-employer relationship, and applies to imposing liability on the employer when an employee, acting within the scope of his or her employment, has infringed on a copyright.

Therefore, an employee who loads and installs pirated software onto his or her office computer or laptop to assist in his or her work may create liability for the employer. A director can be vicariously liable for an employee’s copyright infringement, even if the employer has told the employee directly not to engage in the activity. The law requires directors to have more than just good intentions; directors must be proactive and ensure their place of business is compliant with the law.

In addition, company directors can be liable if an outside contractor commits copyright infringement while working for the company. For example, a company that hires a computer consultant who installs pirated software on the company’s system, or who uses pirated software in performing tasks for the company, may incur liability for infringement.

Again, responsibility is with the company and its directors to ensure the software being used is properly licensed.

Increased Punishments on the Horizon

The present Thai Copyright Act B.E. 2537 is now 18 years old and is being updated, with new amendments likely to be enacted soon. At least two provisions entail more stringent liability of a copyright infringer, including the company and its directors. Under the proposed amendments, the court may order the infringer to pay damages to the copyright owner up to two times the actual damages caused by the infringement. In addition, any articles produced by copyright infringement can be ordered confiscated or destroyed by the court at the expense of the infringer.

Education as a Preventive Measure

As a preventive measure, company directors should ensure that the company adopts a statement of policy that prohibits software piracy and actively informs all employees of the policy. Employees should be told precisely what is and is not permissible under copyright law.

A company should create a written anti-piracy policy and enforce it by taking disciplinary action for violations. Education should be thorough and should extend to all employees involved in the purchase, use, and distribution of software. There should be follow-up explanations and actual software-use checkups.

Software Due Diligence

Company directors have tools at their disposal to ensure that their companies are compliant with software licensing terms. For example, companies can conduct periodic audits to ensure that all programs in use at the company are authorized copies, and that all software is used in an authorized manner. Moreover, companies can adopt and implement a Software Asset Management (SAM) policy that is helpful not only in preventing inadvertent piracy, but also in maximizing a company’s software investment.

If software piracy is uncovered through auditing, it should be swiftly terminated. If the violations are intentional, strict disciplinary measures should be applied. The company should take a strong stand that is clear to anyone inside or outside the organization.

If the policy is visibly policed and vigorously enforced, unauthorized use will likely be reduced, which will minimize any possible damages to the copyright owner and any corresponding monetary award against the company. Moreover, rigorous enforcement of a policy against piracy can help to reduce any personal liability of company officers and managers for acts committed by employees.

By being proactive in combating piracy within the company, directors can save themselves from serious expense, business disruption, and embarrassment resulting from being criminally prosecuted for software violations. Ignoring liability for software copyright violations is a serious mistake that can and should be avoided.

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

August 14, 2026
Thailand’s Office of the Insurance Commission (OIC) has issued guidelines clarifying the boundaries between permissible and prohibited activities for unlicensed individuals—including influencers, bloggers, and content creators—when communicating about insurance products on social media. The Good Practice Guidelines for Persons Not Licensed as Insurance Agents or Brokers Regarding the Dissemination of Insurance Content Through Digital Media B.E. 2569 (2026) took effect on July 24, 2026. Activities Requiring a License The guidelines reserve the following activities for licensed agents and brokers: Soliciting or facilitating insurance contracts. Providing personalized advice on product suitability. Recommending policy cancellation to purchase promoted products. Creating links that facilitate contract formation. Receiving performance-based compensation tied to policies or premiums generated. Importantly, boilerplate disclaimers such as “this is not a recommendation to buy insurance” will not shield individuals from liability if the OIC views the content as personalized advice or solicitation. Permitted Activities Unlicensed persons may present general educational content about insurance—such as explaining terminology, sharing industry statistics, reporting news, or sharing personal experiences—provided the content does not target specific individuals to purchase from specific companies. The guidelines also set out best practices for communication, including presenting information in a fair and balanced manner that covers both benefits and limitations, encouraging consumers to read policy terms and consult licensed professionals, verifying information from credible sources before dissemination, and exercising special care when the audience may include vulnerable groups such as persons aged 60 and older. Prohibited Practices Prohibited practices include fear-based marketing, creating artificial urgency, omitting material limitations, making exaggerated claims, falsely claiming professional credentials, using fake engagement mechanisms, and sharing false or misleading content. The guidelines also reinforce the prohibitions under section 83 of the Life Insurance Act B.E. 2535 and section 78 of the Non-Life Insurance Act B.E. 2535 against soliciting insurance contracts with foreign operators
August 11, 2026
On July 27, 2026, the State Bank of Vietnam (SBV) released a draft decree proposing amendments to Decree No. 52/2024/ND-CP dated May 15, 2024, on non-cash payments (Decree 52). The draft decree would amend 17 of Decree 52’s 38 articles, with several key changes directly affecting providers of intermediary payment service (IPS). The key proposed changes affecting IPS providers are outlined below. Streamlining IPS Licensing Procedures A central objective of the draft decree is to simplify regulatory procedures for IPS providers. Notably, it would significantly reduce IPS licensing documentation requirements by removing the need to submit enterprise registration certificates, investment registration certificates, and documents evidencing the qualifications of the legal representative and general director. Instead, the SBV would retrieve this information directly from national business registration and other specialized databases, requesting additional documents only where the relevant information cannot be verified electronically or is incomplete. The draft decree also removes the current limit of two rounds for dossier supplementation and shortens processing timelines for several IPS licensing procedures such as issuance, amendment, and reissuance of IPS licenses. The processing time for new IPS license applications would be thereby reduced from 90 to 60 working days. In addition, several continuing IPS business conditions would be removed. For example, IPS providers would no longer be required to maintain certain representations relating to corporate restructuring or the legality of contributed capital. Likewise, the IPS project plan (đề án) would become a one-time application document rather than an ongoing licensing condition. If retained in the final decree, this change could provide IPS providers with significantly greater flexibility to implement post-licensing technology upgrades, system integrations, and corporate restructuring transactions without needing to revisit the originally approved project plan. The draft decree also removes the requirement for the SBV to consult the Ministry of Public
August 10, 2026
Thailand has finalized its social media KYC (“know your customer”) rules under Notification of the Electronic Transactions Commission on Measures to Prevent Technological Crimes for Social Media Service Providers (No. 2), which was published in the Government Gazette on May 5, 2026, and will take effect on November 1, 2026. While an early draft of the notification proposed requiring social media platforms to arrange identification of every user account, the final notification is significantly more targeted, focusing on paid online advertising and advertiser identity verification. Though the regulatory initiative primarily aims to combat online fraud and technology-related crimes, it also has important consequences for intellectual property enforcement, because the verified platform records that will be generated under the new requirements can help IP rights holders to identify anonymous online infringers. Key Regulatory Mandates The notification requires social media service providers to verify the identity of advertisers before their paid advertisements are published and disseminated in Thailand through social media, regardless of whether the advertising fees come from the advertisers or third parties. Verification of an advertiser is valid for one year, after which verification would have to be performed again before the platform could publish additional paid advertisements from the advertiser. Permitted verification methods are specified under the notification. A platform may verify an advertiser by checking identity evidence and confirming the connection between the advertiser and that identity evidence, with the notification giving facial comparison against certain government-issued identity documents as an example. Alternatively, platforms may verify advertisers through a digital identity verification and authentication system with an identity-proofing assurance level not lower than the level prescribed by Thailand’s Electronic Transactions Commission. The notification further requires platforms to retain only the advertiser’s information necessary to identify the advertiser, beginning from the start of the advertising activity and for
August 10, 2026
On July 31, 2026, Thailand’s Big Data Institute (BDI) launched a public consultation on the principles of a proposed new data-sharing law, with comments accepted until August 31, 2026. If enacted, the law would establish Thailand’s first comprehensive framework for government and private-sector data sharing, creating a systematic, secure, and transparent regime to support analytics, policymaking, research, and innovation. Central Data-Sharing Platform The draft law establishes a central system for data sharing, managed by the BDI. Government agencies would be required to connect to the BDI’s Data Integration and Intelligence Platform (also referred to as D2), in accordance with the BDI’s rules and procedures. Five Dimensions of Data Sharing The draft law covers five key types of data sharing between government (G), businesses (B), and consumers (C): G2B: Private organizations may request government data specifically for research and development purposes. The BDI will assess the applicant’s data governance, security, and privacy capabilities whether such measures meet prescribed standards before forwarding the request to the relevant government agency within 90 days. Any dispute may be escalated to a newly established Data-Sharing Promotion Committee for final determination. G2G: Government agencies may request data from other agencies through the central system. The data-holding agency must respond within 90 days, taking legality, necessity, proportionality, public interest, and personal data protection into account. Disputes may be referred to the Data-Sharing Promotion Committee for adjudication. B2G: In emergency situations involving public safety, economic security, or disaster response, the Minister of Digital Economy and Society may require private entities to provide data through the central data-sharing system. Government agencies must specify the data requested, demonstrate its necessity and expected benefits, and request only data reasonably available to the data holder. Requests for personal data must be limited to the minimum amount necessary. B2C: Royal decrees may