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​ 

March 13, 2026
Vietnam’s Law on Intellectual Property (IP Law) has undergone continuous amendment in recent years, with the latest amendment issued at the end of 2025. Among the amended and supplemented provisions, the regulation that has perhaps attracted the most attention is a provision relating to the use of protected IP objects by artificial intelligence (AI) systems. Specifically, Article 7 of the 2025 IP Law introduces a completely new Clause 5, which reads in full as follows: “Organizations and individuals are permitted to use texts and data relating to intellectual property objects that have been lawfully published, and which the public is allowed to access, for the purposes of scientific research, experimentation, and training of artificial intelligence systems, provided that such use will not unreasonably affect the legitimate rights and interests of the authors and intellectual property rights holders in accordance with this Law. With respect to texts and data that are objects protected by copyright and related rights, the use of the texts and data as set forth herein must also be in accordance with the regulations of the Government.” Analyzing this newly added provision in the context of how it was conceived, as well as the challenges that still lie ahead, can provide some interesting insights. From Aspirations to Flight in Science and Technology From the end of 2024 and throughout 2025—the 50th anniversary of the country’s reunification—Vietnam witnessed numerous sweeping changes in many areas, including legislative development. It could be said that no sessions of the National Assembly have ever adopted as many laws, resolutions, and major policies as this one. The aspirations of the highest-level leadership have been concretized into major law and policy projects, which were drafted, developed, and passed at record speed. All of this was aimed at building a foundation for Vietnam to achieve
March 12, 2026
Thailand’s AI legislative framework took another step forward when the Office of the Consumer Protection Board (OCPB) issued a notification establishing guidelines for AI-generated advertising that may cause material misunderstanding about products or services. The notification, which is already in effect, was issued under the Consumer Protection Act B.E. 2522 (1979) and its amendments, which prohibit advertising that is unfair to consumers or may cause harm to society, including false or exaggerated statements and statements that may cause material misunderstanding about products or services. The notification addresses emerging advertising practices, including the use of images edited using software or AI to attract consumer interest or build credibility. The OCPB noted that such advertising may result in consumers misunderstanding the essential characteristics, condition, or usage of products, which violates consumer rights and causes damage. Key Requirements on AI-Generated or Digitally Manipulated Advertising Content For advertisements using still images or videos created or edited with software programs or AI tools that may cause the depicted product or service to differ from the actual product sold or service provided—which may cause misunderstanding regarding the condition, quality, quantity, or other essential aspects of the products or services—advertisers and business operators must comply with the following requirements: Prior authorization. Obtain approval from relevant regulatory authorities where required by law. Accurate representation. Ensure that the advertised size, quantity, volume, number, or composition matches the actual product or service being sold, whether in still images or videos. Mandatory AI disclosure labels. Display clear disclosures when AI or software is used to create or edit images, such as: “Real image or simulation edited using AI” “Photo from actual location or simulation edited using AI” “Photo from actual product or edited simulation” “Image created by AI” “Video created by AI” Clarity of disclosure. Ensure disclosures are clearly visible,
March 10, 2026
Thailand’s Ministry of Finance and Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) have issued regulations broadening the criteria for determining who qualifies as a “major shareholder” of licensed securities and digital asset business operators. Under relevant SEC regulations, major shareholders of a regulated entity must obtain regulatory approval and undergo screening by the SEC. The revised framework introduces both shareholding-based and control-based tests to determine which shareholders require regulatory approval for a wider range of indirect ownership structures and de facto control. The Ministry of Finance notification took effect on February 21, 2026, while the SEC’s clarifying rules took effect on March 4, 2026. These changes aim to enhance transparency around beneficial ownership and strengthen regulatory oversight of entities operating in Thailand’s capital markets. Expanded Definition Under the revised framework, a “major shareholder” now includes persons who directly or indirectly hold more than 10% of the voting rights in a regulated company, as well as persons who exercise control over the regulated company or its shares. This system of two separate tests, based on both shareholding and control, differs from the prior regime, which focused primarily on shareholding thresholds and applied a more limited method for determining indirect shareholdings. The two tests (detailed below) operate independently of each other, and any person identified by either of the tests will be deemed a major shareholder. Shareholding-Based Test Broadens Indirect Ownership Attribution For the shareholding-based test, the SEC recognizes two existing methods for identifying indirect ownership, together with a new proportional attribution method. Any person captured under these methods, which are described below, will be regarded as a major shareholder of the regulated company and must obtain SEC approval as a major shareholder. First, the existing framework continues to apply to both first-tier and chain ownership structures. Approval is required for (1) first-tier
March 6, 2026
Thailand’s Legislation Consideration Committee of the Ministry of Interior has ruled that in-game loot boxes in online games do not constitute gambling under the Gambling Act B.E. 2478 (1935). This first-of-its-kind ruling provides useful guidance for online game operators and digital entertainment companies operating in Thailand. Background The ruling came in response to an inquiry concerning an online role-playing game operator that launched a campaign featuring a loot box mechanism. The mechanism allowed players to purchase a token in exchange for the opportunity to receive a virtual loot box containing randomized in-game items. The key features of this were as follows: The items received were digital, noncash items usable only within the game. The items could not be exchanged, redeemed, or converted into cash with the game operator. Items may differ in rarity but remain purely virtual. The central question was whether paying money to obtain randomized in-game items constituted a risk-based activity involving the chance to receive money or property of monetary value, which would constitute gambling under the Gambling Act. Committee Ruling The committee reached the following conclusions regarding the characteristics of the game’s loot-box mechanism: No cash or monetary equivalent: Players did not receive cash or property that could be exchanged for cash. The in-game items were merely usage rights within the online game ecosystem. No real-world monetary valuation: There was no determination of item value in real currency, and no mechanism for redeeming or converting items into money with the game operator. Any off-platform trading of in-game items between players is irrelevant to online game operators, as any value arising from such transactions is determined by the market rather than by the operators themselves. Service fee characterization: Payments made by players purchasing in-game loot boxes constituted fees for online game services. Accordingly, the committee concluded