Thailand’s Digital Piracy Crackdown: What Indian Content Owners Need to Know About Cross-Border Copyright Enforcement

Introduction : Industry estimates put the loss caused by online piracy to the international media and entertainment industries at tens of billions of dollars annually, owing to the instantaneous and transnational availability of copyright protected content on streaming sites, torrent sites, and unauthorized IPTV networks. In terms of rights holders, the challenge is not merely that of individual pirating websites but the whole complex of flexible, commercialized systems of service competing head-on with the licensed distribution system.

Thailand is increasingly gaining importance in this context as a rapidly growing digital economy, a regional center of OTT and Pay-TV, and one of the relatively few Southeast Asian nations to combine site-blocking administratively and via AI assisted methods with effective criminal enforcement of online piracy.

Why does the changing legal landscape in Thailand matter for Indian businesses, including film studios, OTT platforms, music labels, software companies, and publishers? Because:

• Online pirate sites targeting Thai users routinely distribute Indian catalogues along with other content.
• The Thai regime is a good example of cross border enforcement which may well be in sync with the dynamic injunctions jurisprudence of India.

Thailand’s emerging copyright infringement blocking system

Legal foundation

Section 20(3) of Thailand’s Computer Crime Act B.E. 2560 (2017) forms the primary law that Thailand uses in order to block websites that engage in piracy. The relevant section provides for the ability of MDES to apply to the courts to block/remove computer data which constitutes an offence, including IP offences.

Despite copyright being regulated by the Thai Copyright Act, website blocking for copyright infringement complaints is practically done under the Computer Crime Act.

Institutional structure

As opposed to an institutional enforcement regime that involves a single regulatory body, the country has developed a multi agency system, in which different institutions have their distinct roles:

• The Department of Intellectual Property (DIP) – examines complaints for infringement, works with rights holders;
• MDES – makes blocking requests in court, implements technology tools for enforcement, issues blocking orders to ISPs;
• The Royal Thai Police – Economic Crime Suppression Division (ECD) – deals with criminal copyright complaints that fall within the category of compoundable offences;
• The Department of Special Investigation (DSI) – takes responsibility for high-profile cases involving copyright piracy, including unauthorized IPTV;
• The National Broadcasting and Telecommunications Commission (NBTC) – orders ISPs and telecommunications companies to block infringing sites and services.

From the point of view of the judicial branch of power, there is a separate Technology Crime Division of the Criminal Court that considers MDES’ blocking applications under Section 20(3).

Enforcement measures and innovations

Current reforms involve digitization, automation, and scaling up:

• MDES and DIP make use of technologies like WebD and SUSPEND for managing blocking requests and distributing the decisions of courts to ISPs.
• There are government claims of having blocked hundreds of thousands of illegal URLs in their broader cybercrime initiative with the help of AI-based systems that identify illegal content and then push URLs to the enforcement pipeline.
• Current practice enables blocking orders to cover even mirror sites and sites where domain redirection takes place, thereby developing a dynamic system that mimics the actual working of piracy infrastructure.

Together, these measures transform the approach of Thailand from ad-hoc to systematic technological copyright enforcement in cyberspace.

Attacks on streaming websites, download websites and IPTV platforms

The Thai model has been utilized to tackle the piracy infrastructure itself, rather than just end users alone. Three recent developments have been especially informative.

Torrenting platforms: Siambit.me

February 2024 saw a crackdown conducted by the Economic Crimes Department of the Royal Thai Police, assisted by the Alliance for Creativity and Entertainment (ACE), on several locations associated with Siambit.me, said to be Thailand’s largest BitTorrent tracker website. The arrests of four individuals were made; the platform received roughly 5.5 million visitors monthly and had 100,000 VIP members on subscriptions.

Illegal IPTV: INWIPTV/FWIPTV

In 2025, Thailand’s Department of Special Investigation (DSI) together with ACE and True Visions (a pay TV provider in the country), successfully closed INWIPTV (earlier known as FWIPTV). 46 servers and other transmission equipment were seized in the operation – INWIPTV had been charging 300 baht per month for providing access to numerous channels including Thai and international.

This example is remarkable because the fight against subscription-based piracy competing with legitimate pay TV/OTT services and the importance of cooperation between international rightsholders, local broadcasters and Thai enforcement agencies is shown.

Administrative and platform level actions

The following measures have also been taken by Thailand against streaming and downloading:

• The NBTC ordered ISPs to block websites that had been streaming movies illegally upon a complaint of the Thai motion picture industry.
• The DIP led an operation against 463 platforms offering infringed music products and issued orders to delete unauthorised listings from platforms which can also be implemented to fight against piracy in video and software industries.

In all cases, Thailand is trying to fight against torrent websites, IPTV services, streaming websites and marketplace sellers on the infrastructure level, rather than against individuals.

Site Blocking & Dynamic Site Blocking

Static & Dynamic Site Blocking

Traditionally, site blocking orders have been static in nature, naming specific domains and asking the ISP to block these domains’ URLs. In response, pirates have started using mirror sites and redirecting their websites; thus, rights owners need to file fresh applications or even file suit against them every time.

Nowadays, the Thai Government has decided to adopt dynamic site blocking, where:

• The court orders, under Section 20(3), may explicitly cover new domains that host the same infringing content without necessitating any re-litigation.
• The MDES may consider the redirected domains or successor domains as within the scope of the initial court order on a prima facie basis that these domains are mirror websites.
• The ISPs will have a time period of compliance and may be fined, under Section 27 of the Computer Crime Act, for failing to execute the blocking orders.

It is an international practice, which has been adopted in some nations like India, and other European or Asian Pacific countries.

Strategic approach to the process

Strategically speaking, a strategic exploitation of Thailand’s dynamic blocking mechanism consists of three stages:

1. Systematic framing of the problem: The rights owner submits evidence showing that a platform and mirrors pose a systemic threat because they are systematically used to infringe upon copyright.
2. Gaining a blocking order: They gain a court order from the MDES under Section 20(3) identifying the site as something that needs to be blocked and allowing for the blocking of any other domain offering identical content dynamically.
3. Dynamic monitoring and extending of the order: They create an updated list of mirrors and redirects via crawlers and watermarks and submit it to MDES and ISPs under the cover of the initial order.
4. The point here is not simply the completion of certain procedural acts but creating complaints, gathering evidence, and monitoring the situation considering dynamic blocking.

Practical enforcement strategy for rights holders

Rights holders’ enforcement is more effective when considering Thai processes not as a manual but as strategic instruments that may be mixed to achieve business goals.

Some key components of a successful strategy should be:

• Risk mapping and prioritization: Find out which platforms contribute most to substitution of licensed distribution major torrent sites, IPTV, streaming sites or marketplace vendors and apply enforcement against such platforms.
• Evidence driven complaints: Create complaints based on scale, monetization and organized nature (traffic, subscriptions, advertisement), to prove dynamic site blocking and initiate criminal proceedings.
• Synergy with industry organizations and local actors: Approach industry organizations as ACE, CAP, Thai industry associations, as well as local broadcasters and OTT partners to show authorities that multiple rights holders are victims of the same infringement.
• Bundled, dynamic site blocking: Try to obtain blocking orders targeting multiple domains and future mirrors and monitors in order to provide URLs to MDES/DIP process.
• Takedown of platform and marketplace listings: Apply DIP notices in order to eliminate piracy listings from major platforms, especially in case of piracy that is run through legitimate marketplaces.

Implications for Indian content owners

Film studios

Indian film studios will find their films making an appearance on regional torrent sites and IPTV services catering to the Thai audience. Thailand’s approach of dynamic blocking coupled with DSI/ECD raids provides a path to shutting down popular sites streaming Hindi and regional language films, especially when film studios file complaints jointly with international and local partners.

OTT platforms

OTT platforms originating out of India and distributing into Thailand either directly or through local aggregators are subject to risks from illegal streaming sites and IPTV services featuring near full catalogs of content at discounted subscription plans. Dynamic blocking orders as well as criminal enforcement will enable the protection of exclusivity for series, sports and premium OTT content, provided the licensing terms give sufficient power to local partners to act on behalf of the platform.

Music labels

Music labels should use DIP’s experience issuing notices resulting in removal of unauthorized tracks from hundreds of sites. Indian music labels can utilize DIP notices to cleanse Thai marketplaces of unauthorized songs listings and streams, while resorting to site blocking for specific pirate music sites and applications.

Software and gaming companies

Software and gaming companies find their portals and cracking websites distributing pirated versions. Blocking sites and dynamic domain names by Thailand will assist in taking down such portals for distributing cracked software/games where the portals may have monetization through advertising and premium membership.

Publishers

Publishers especially those in the scholarly and professional domains will encounter PDF sharing sites and shadow libraries. The combination of site blocking and platform takedown will lead to reduced access in Thailand for these repositories, along with contractual provisions and other technical mechanisms.

The implication in all these cases is that Thailand can be seen as a venue of credible enforcement for Indian rights holders for obtaining blocking orders as well as criminal proceedings.

Building a cross border anti-piracy strategy

Since piracy is cross-border in nature, it is advisable that Indian rightsholders should look at Thailand as one of the nodes in a larger regional enforcement network.

Coordination with Thai counsel and coalitions

Coordinate with local Thai counsels who are knowledgeable about MDES/DIP process and the computer crime act. Join forces through associations like ACE or content alliances in the region.

Matching enforcement rights and license

Ensure that any distribution and licensing arrangements in Thailand:

• Define enforcement responsibilities and costs; and
• Allow for complaints, site blocking and raids by local partners where applicable.

This will save time when swift reaction is needed.

Use technology and AI together

Harmonize internal technologies (crawlers, fingerprinting, watermarking) with Thailand’s use of artificial intelligence in detection, and share information about rogue platforms and mirrors for the purposes of identifying new domains and dynamic website blocking.

Regional cooperation

Coordinate Thai operations with dynamic injunctions and enforcement in India and other ASEAN nations, to the effect of targeting big platforms simultaneously, for instance:

• Indian court orders, site blocking in Thailand and complaints in neighboring countries.

This type of regional coordination can make single measures into an Asian wide campaign against piracy.

Thailand and India: comparison

India and Thailand agree on one crucial point: dynamic website blocking as response to changing piracy infrastructure, but arrive at it from different legal approaches.

Dynamic injunctions of India

The Indian courts, especially the Delhi High Court, have formulated the idea of dynamic injunctions as an evolution of the existing John Doe orders. The UTV Software Communications Ltd. v. 1337X.to & Ors. The case set an important precedent as the court permitted copyright owners to extend their existing injunctions to mirror and alphanumeric websites by filing an application before the Joint Registrar and presenting him evidence of these websites being mirrors of the already blocked websites.

Later developments have led to the formulation of the dynamic injunctions in case of live sports and OTT broadcasting, where injunctions have been ordered in favour of companies like JioStar as well as top studios of the world to prevent the activities of the rogue websites that stream such content during tournaments or premium series/films through dozens and even hundreds of websites.

Thailand’s administrative coordination regime

On the other hand, the dynamic blocking in Thailand comes about through administrative coordination:

• The rights owners file complaints to the ECD and DIP;
• MDES requests a blocking order to be issued by the Technology Crime Division under Section 20(3); and
• The ISPs will do the blocking according to the directions from MDES via systems like SUSPEND.

The dynamic extension is in the MDES approach and the court orders but not in the general civil injunction approach.

Lessons for Indian businesses

Both countries understand that the static injunctions will not work and have resorted to adopting adaptive blocking mechanisms. Some important lessons for Indian rights owners are:

• Leverage litigation dynamic injunction in India, while using administrative dynamic blocking overseas. Tailor the complaints accordingly.
• Leverage enforcement programs and evidence that can meet the rogue websites’ criteria in India and Section 20(3) criteria in Thailand concurrently.

Practical checklist for Indian rightsholders

For Indian rightsholders, a simple checklist can be followed when considering Thailand anti-piracy activities:

• Observe whether there is any unauthorised distribution of Indian content on Thai facing streaming websites, torrent sites and IPTV providers.
• Save evidence digitally (links, screenshots, traffic indicators, subscription options) to file a complaint.
• Engage Thai lawyers in advance of taking action and in some cases consider engaging associations like ACE and CAP.
• Have proper licensing agreements with clear enforcement terms allowing local partners to file a complaint and initiate site blocking action.
• File a request for dynamic site blocking in MDES/DIP case of systematic and continuous piracy with frequent domain name change.
• Do both platform takedown and criminal referral for high-impact cases (subscription IPTV providers, torrent sites, etc.).
• Coordinate with Indian enforcement teams as well and make Thailand actions consistent with Indian dynamic injunctions.

Conclusion

With piracy websites operating on an international level, shifting fast from one website to another, copyright enforcement would become increasingly dependent upon international cooperation supported by technology. Thailand’s emerging mechanism involving dynamic site blocking, artificial intelligence aided detection, interagency collaboration and targeted operations shows how today’s copyright enforcement is also about institutional design and adaptability as much as substantive copyright laws themselves.

For Indian copyright owners, the bottom line is clear – the ones who have made investments in surveillance, contractual integration, local partnerships and enforcement in India and Thailand would be best placed in protecting their copyrighted works.

Author:- Harsh Verma, in case of any queries please contact/write back to us at support@ipandlegalfilings.com or   IP & Legal Filing.

References

1. Computer Crime Act B.E. 2560 (2017) (Thailand) – Section 20(3) and Section 27.
2. Copyright Act B.E. 2537 (1994) (Thailand), as amended.
3. The Copyright Act, 1957 (India).
4. Information Technology Act, 2000 (India) (where relevant to intermediary liability and blocking mechanisms).
5. UTV Software Communication Ltd. & Ors. v. 1337X.to & Ors., 2019 SCC OnLine Del 8002.
6. Relevant Delhi High Court decisions on dynamic and “dynamic” injunctions relating to rogue websites and live sports broadcasting (e.g., orders involving Star India/JioStar and Warner Bros. Discovery, where cited).
7. Department of Intellectual Property (Thailand), https://www.ipthailand.go.th/
8. Ministry of Digital Economy and Society (Thailand), https://www.mdes.go.th/
9. National Broadcasting and Telecommunications Commission (Thailand), https://www.nbtc.go.th/
10. Department of Special Investigation (Thailand), https://www.dsi.go.th/
11. World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), https://www.wipo.int/
12. ASEAN Intellectual Property Portal, https://www.aseanip.org/
13. Alliance for Creativity and Entertainment (ACE), Enforcement News and Press Releases.
14. International Federation of the Phonographic Industry (IFPI), Global Music Report (latest edition).
15. Motion Picture Association (MPA), Anti-Piracy and Content Protection Resources.