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​ 

August 4, 2026
Thailand’s Personal Data Protection Act B.E. 2562 (2019) (PDPA) could soon see some important changes, as a draft bill to amend the PDPA has been introduced in the House of Representatives. The draft amendment is currently in the public consultation phase, with comments accepted from July 16 to August 15, 2026. If enacted in its current form, the amendment would make three key changes: expanding the government exemption to cover anticorruption operations, introducing a statutory definition of “government agency,” and restructuring the lawful bases for personal data processing to align with international standards. Background The PDPA has encountered several enforcement challenges since its implementation, including three core problems identified by the bill’s sponsors: (1) the current exemptions for government agencies do not cover anticorruption and misconduct-prevention operations; (2) the PDPA lacks a clear statutory definition of “government agency,” causing legal uncertainty as to which entities are covered; and (3) the existing framework for lawful bases of data processing does not align with international standards—particularly the multiple-lawful-bases system in the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR)—making compliance inflexible for both government and private sector entities. Expanded Government Exemption The current PDPA exempts government agencies performing duties related to national security (including fiscal security), public safety, anti-money laundering, forensic science, and cybersecurity. The proposed amendment adds “prevention and suppression of corruption and misconduct” to this list of exempted functions. This would allow anticorruption bodies—most notably the National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC), which is identified as a directly affected party—to collect, use, and disclose personal data without being subject to PDPA requirements when carrying out their duties. New Statutory Definition of “Government Agency” Notably, while the current PDPA use the term “government agency” in several provisions, the term is not comprehensively defined, creating potential uncertainty as to its scope. The draft bill therefore
Read More
August 3, 2026
On July 23, 2026, the Bank of Thailand (BOT) released for public comment its draft Notification on Digital Channel Security, which would significantly expand the scope and stringency of Thailand’s existing mobile banking security framework. If finalized in its current form, the draft notification would extend mandatory security requirements to credit card providers and credit providers, cover internet banking in addition to mobile applications, phase out SMS one-time passwords (OTPs) for transaction authentication, and introduce biometric verification requirements for high-value transactions. The public comment period is open through August 24, 2026. Background The BOT’s existing Mobile Banking Security Notification, issued in 2024, sets minimum security standards for financial institutions, specialized financial institutions (SFIs), and e-money providers, significantly reducing “money-draining app” fraud. However, fraudsters have since shifted to nonbank providers and internet banking channels, prompting the BOT to propose broader security requirements. Expanded Scope of Regulated Entities and Channels The existing Mobile Banking Security Notification covers only financial institutions, SFIs, and e-money providers offering mobile banking services. The draft expands coverage in two key areas: entities and channels. On the entity side, it adds credit card providers and credit providers that offer fund transfers to third parties at other financial service providers or that provide cash withdrawal services to individual retail customers. On the channel side, it broadens coverage to include internet banking in addition to mobile banking. Strengthened Customer Authentication The draft introduces enhanced authentication requirements in three areas: Service enrollment and device changes. Providers must implement rigorous identity verification, notify customers of enrollment results through out-of-band communication channels, and adopt risk-mitigation measures such as cooling-off periods and temporary transaction limits. Transaction-level authentication. Providers must use two-factor authentication for fund transfers, cardless ATM withdrawals, and transaction limit increases. Secure authentication factors. Key requirements include the following: “What-you-know” factors must
Read More
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