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

August 22, 2012

Using the Computer Crimes Act to Combat Online Piracy

Subscribe to Updates
Informed Counsel

The increase in online shopping has proven lucrative for legitimate retailers. But traders selling counterfeit and pirated products have also taken advantage by selling a wide range of counterfeit products online. In searching for new solutions to battle intellectual property infringement on the internet, recent meetings between government officials and members of the private sector have resulted in an innovative approach that relies on existing legislation. This article will provide an overview of the current regulatory environment and the recommended procedures that will facilitate the shutting down of illegal retail websites, and help to halt the rise in purchases of counterfeit goods on the internet.

Online Piracy Challenges

According to a report by the Department of Intellectual Property (DIP), 40 percent of pirated films, music DVDs, and CDs are offered for sale online. For counterfeiters, there are three key benefits in shifting from traditional brick-and-mortar marketplaces to online retailing:

  1. There is no stall rental fee.
  2. Many of the corrupt activities surrounding the sale of counterfeit goods can be avoided.
  3. Storage of goods is not required, which reduces the chances of being caught in possession of the illegal goods and subsequently arrested.

Since existing IP laws in Thailand do not explicitly sanction the sale of counterfeit goods online, IP owners have, up until now, been unable to take aggressive action against these online sellers. In practice, IP owners have tried to tackle this type of infringement in Thailand by conducting investigations to uncover the source of the fake goods, followed by raid actions at storage facilities, stockrooms, and warehouses.

This investigation-and-raid approach however, is increasingly becoming hampered by the fact that online traders do not typically store their goods on their premises. Instead, traders purchase the counterfeit products from other sellers in the market, after having received purchase orders from their customers.

Existing Legal Framework

In the absence of specific legislation to address these activities, the Thai government has tried to solve this problem by relying on related legislation. When advising IP owners of their enforcement options, one suggestion raised by the DIP is to apply Sections 14 and 20 of the Computer Crimes Act B.E. 2550 (2007).              

Section 14: Whoever commits the following offenses shall be liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years, or a fine of not exceeding THB 100,000, or both:

(1) Entering wholly or partially spurious computer data or false computer data into a computer system, in a manner that is likely to cause injury to other persons or the public. …

Section 20: In the case where the commission of an offense under this Act involves the distribution of computer data that may affect the security of the Kingdom, as prescribed in Book II, Title I or Title I/I of the Penal Code, which may be inconsistent with public order or good morals, the competent official may apply for a motion to the court to order that the distribution of such computer data be blocked.

In 2011, these sections were applied to a case related to food and medical products before Thailand’s Criminal Court. In Red Case Sor. 33/2554, the defendant committed an offense of advertising the sale of food, medicine, and medical equipment by using untrue information that was deceptive to consumers. The court deemed that this act constituted an offense under Section 14(1) of the Computer Crimes Act. The court therefore issued an order to block the distribution activities undertaken by the website, pursuant to Section 20 of the Act.

As this judgment shows, Sections 14 and 20 grant to the court the authority to block the distribution of forged computer data or false computer data, upon the request of an officer, if the court finds that such contents may be inconsistent with public order or good morals. Unfortunately, the content of the Computer Crimes Act is not clear in defining whether offering counterfeit goods for sale on a website can be considered “forged computer data.” Although some government officials claim that this law sets out the right to take action against websites that offer fake goods for sale online, others opine that fake goods offered on a website cannot be deemed “forged computer data” under Section 14.

Proposed New Approach

In seeking a solution to this problem, representatives from the Ministry of Information and Communication Technology (MICT), the DIP, and the private sector met on March 12 and March 20, 2012. During the meeting, the Director-General of the DIP stated that she encouraged IP representatives or IP owners to submit a formal letter to the MICT requesting to shut down these websites under Section 14. When an IP owner proceeds with such a formal letter, this would provide a type of test case to determine whether Section 14 of the Computer Crimes Act can feasibly be used to shut down websites that offer fake goods for sale.

In light of these developments, a new procedure was proposed during the meeting (see graphic below). If all parties implement this procedure, it could enable IP owners to shut down websites selling counterfeit or pirated goods in as little as two weeks. Clearly, this would be a major development for long-suffering IP owners who have battled online piracy for years.

Implementing the Procedure

Although the debate is ongoing, it is evident that the Thai government intends to implement more stringent measures in the near future to inhibit the stream of illicit gains enjoyed by illegal online retailing operations. When an IP owner decides to test the approach proposed by the DIP and a court order is requested, practitioners will eagerly await the outcome for any developments in this area of the law. If the Computer Crimes Act is deemed practicable, it would provide an efficient route for IP owners to shut these websites down, without incurring additional investigation costs.

However, if the court decides that the activities of illegal online retailers—specifically, offering counterfeit goods for sale on a website—do not constitute “forged computer data” under Section 14, it will then be necessary for all stakeholders to push ahead with further amendments to existing IP law.

Download Full Article
Related Professionals

Industries

Technology

Practices

Intellectual Property

Location

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
Read More
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,
Read More
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
Read More
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
Read More