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

Subscribe to Updates
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.

Download Full Article

Industries

Technology

Practices

Intellectual Property

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

July 28, 2026
Data protection officers (DPOs) have become a fixture of Thailand’s privacy compliance landscape since the Personal Data Protection Act B.E. 2562 (2019) (PDPA) took full effect and the Office of the Personal Data Protection Committee (PDPC) began requiring certain organizations to appoint them. On July 7, 2026, the Office of the PDPC presented draft guidance on DPOs as part of a public consultation on a series of draft personal data protection manuals and recommendations. The draft offers the clearest indication yet of how the regulator expects the DPO role to work in practice, addressing recurring implementation issues under the PDPA—including when an organization must appoint a DPO, how the DPO should operate independently, how to manage conflicts of interest, and how data subjects and regulators should be able to contact the DPO. Because it remains in draft, organizations have an opportunity to weigh the practical implications now before the guidance is finalized. When a DPO Must Be Appointed The draft guidance clarifies the triggers for mandatory DPO appointment, including: Regular and systematic monitoring of personal data or systems on a large scale, such as tracking, analyzing, or predicting behavior, attitudes, or individual characteristics. Core activities involving large-scale processing of sensitive personal data, such as health data, biometric data, or criminal records. Certain foreign-organization representative arrangements. Public-sector coverage under relevant notifications identifying government entities that must appoint a DPO. Processing involving 100,000 or more data subjects may be considered large-scale. The guidance also contemplates voluntary DPO appointment for organizations that wish to raise their privacy governance standards, and such organizations should still comply with the standards applicable to DPOs under the law. Independence and Reporting Lines The draft guidance identifies lack of DPO independence as a core risk because an ineffective or constrained DPO may be unable to raise deficiencies
Read More
July 27, 2026
Vietnam’s new E-Commerce Law, which took effect on 1 July 2026 along with its implementing Decree No. 248/2026/ND-CP (Decree 248), marks a significant development in the country’s approach to online intellectual property (IP) enforcement, reflecting a clear shift from a reactive model of intermediary liability to one that expects platforms to play a more active role in preventing infringement. From notice-and-takedown to platform responsibility The most significant change introduced by the E-Commerce Law is the transformation of the legal role of e-commerce platforms. The existing safe harbor provisions under the IP Law and the copyright notice-and-takedown regime established by Decree 17/2023/ND-CP (Decree 17) largely required intermediaries to act only after receiving notice of infringement. Once infringing content had been removed, the platform’s legal obligation was generally considered fulfilled. The new legislation adopts a fundamentally different approach. Article 17 of the E-Commerce Law requires intermediary platforms to screen information relating to goods and services before publication in order to prevent listings involving counterfeit or IP-infringing goods, and goods of unknown origin. Rather than relying exclusively on complaints from rights holders, platforms are now expected to implement preventive measures before infringing listings become publicly available. Decree 248 further requires platforms to update keyword filters based on recommendations issued by competent authorities. These filtering mechanisms are intended to prevent prohibited listings from appearing on the platform and represent a further move away from a purely complaint-driven enforcement model. The legislation also introduces Vietnam’s first statutory stay-down obligation. Under the E-Commerce Law and Decree 248, major digital platforms must maintain automated systems capable of reviewing, warning against, and removing unlawful listings while also implementing measures to prevent repeat violations, defined under Decree 248 as conduct that has previously been identified and handled by the platform, but continues to recur. This obligation addresses one
Read More
July 27, 2026
A new decree on penalties for violations related to the crypto asset market creates compliance risks for offshore crypto asset exchanges in Vietnam that do not hold, and practically cannot obtain, a Vietnamese license, and for Vietnamese users who continue to transact on those platforms. Decree No. 284/2026/ND-CP (Decree 284), issued by the government of Vietnam on July 16, 2026, formally establishes an administrative penalty framework for violations related to crypto assets and the crypto asset market. The decree takes effect on September 1, 2026, and will remain in force for the duration of the five-year pilot program under Resolution No. 05/2025/NQ-CP, which is scheduled to end in September 2030. Direct Penalties on Vietnamese Users The most immediate commercial risk to offshore platforms is that their Vietnamese users now face direct personal liability for using their exchanges. Vietnamese users who trade crypto assets outside of a Ministry of Finance-licensed service provider face fines of up to VND 50 million (approximately USD 1,900). Vietnamese users trading in crypto assets that are offered or issued to foreign users face higher penalties of up to VND 100 million (approximately USD 3,800). It is expected that Vietnamese users will be more willing to migrate away from offshore platforms now that there is a risk of real enforcement against them. Penalties on Unlicensed Service Providers Violations of providing crypto asset services or advertising crypto-related services without a license face fines of up to VND 200 million (approximately USD 7,700). Operating a crypto asset trading market without proper authorization falls within the same highest penalty bands. Organizations that violate issuance, provision, or disclosure rules may face fines of up to VND 200 million. Although the maximum administrative fine per violation is capped at VND 200 million for organizations and VND 100 million for individuals, these
Read More
July 21, 2026
Thailand’s Ministry of Digital Economy and Society (MDES) published a notification establishing an expedited court-ordered takedown mechanism for online content in cases of “urgent necessity.” The notification, which was issued on July 17, 2026, under the Computer Crime Act B.E. 2550 (2007), as amended, took effect the following day. It significantly expands the categories of content subject to rapid government-initiated removal. Content Categories Subject to Takedown The notification defines “urgent necessity” (section 20, paragraph 5, of the Computer Crime Act) as circumstances where any delay in suppressing computer data may impact national security, religion, the monarchy, good morals, social culture, or public order. In this regard, it establishes four broad categories of content: Computer Crime Act offenses. National security offenses. IP and other criminal offenses, where it is contrary to public order or good morals and a competent officer has requested its suppression. Content contrary to public order or good morals, a broad residual category encompassing 14 subcategories approved by the Computer Data Screening Committee. The fourth category is the most expansive. Its 14 subcategories include: Content defaming, mocking, satirizing, or devaluing the monarchy. Online gambling advertising or facilitation. Offering illegal firearms for sale. Offering baraku (hookah) products or e-cigarettes for sale. Offering cannabis inflorescences or processed cannabis products for sale. Advertising or soliciting prostitution. Content inciting violence, hatred, or social division. Unauthorized overseas employment advertising. Offering boiled kratom juice for sale. Online sale or advertising of alcoholic beverages. Content satirizing or degrading Buddhism. Money lending at interest rates exceeding legally prescribed limits. Advertising or disseminating information about surrogacy services. Forgery of documents, cards, or official documents. Enforcement Procedure In cases of urgent necessity, a competent official assigned by the MDES permanent secretary must file a petition with supporting evidence to the court with jurisdiction, requesting an order to
Read More