Thailand: Copyright (Amendement) Bill revisits ISPs

Managing IP is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 4 Bouverie Street, London, EC4Y 8AX

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2024

Accessibility | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Modern Slavery Statement

Thailand: Copyright (Amendement) Bill revisits ISPs

In recent years, advances in technology have created changes in the manner in which consumers interact with copyrighted works. These changes have resulted in a significant increase in copyright infringement online. In response to these changes and the increase in online copyright infringement, Thailand promulgated modifications to the Thai Copyright Act. In addition, the Thai government proposed additional modifications to the Thai Copyright Act.

In 2015, two Copyright (Amendment) Acts passed, with two more drafted with likely promulgation in 2019. The two draft Copyright (Amendment) Bills currently under review modify the legal duties and liabilities of internet service providers (ISPs), an issue the earlier 2015 amendments began to address. The draft Bill was approved by the Thai Cabinet on October 16 2018 and examination by the Office of the Council of State will take place before its presentation to the National Legislative Assembly.

Prior to the 2015 amendments, the Copyright Act contained no requirements for ISPs to assist copyright holders in protecting their rights against online infringers. In addition, the Copyright Act contained no specific procedures for copyright holders to obtain such assistance from ISPs. These deficiencies in the Copyright Act adversely affected copyright owners, which in turn adversely affected commerce in Thailand.

To address the deficiencies in the Thai Copyright Act, the Copyright Act (No. 2) B.E. 2558 (2015) added Section 32/3, giving copyright holders recourse to petition competent courts for injunctions requiring ISPs, through whose services the alleged infringement occurred, to remove infringing content. Upon grant of an injunction, ISPs must remove infringing content, while the copyright holder must initiate a lawsuit against the alleged infringer within the time set by a court.

Although Section 32/3 strengthened the position of copyright holders against copyright infringement, Section 32/3 resulted in ISPs categorically refusing to cooperate with copyright owners for takedowns where no court injunctions existed. Further, Section 32/3 requires copyright holders to bring legal actions within the time set by the courts. Where copyright holders fail to bring such actions, the courts remove the injunctions along with the ISP's obligations. In practice, copyright holders face great challenges to filing lawsuits against alleged infringers, because once the ISP has discharged its obligation by taking down or blocking the allegedly infringing content, no effective means exist for copyright holders to investigate the alleged infringement.

To summarise, under the current system, takedowns of infringing content only occur after petitioning the courts. As ISPs lack other incentives to assist with stopping copyright infringement, ISPs fail to assist copyright holders. Without the assistance of ISPs, short of court actions, copyright owners seldom succeed in stopping infringement by alleged infringers. Provisions in the draft Copyright Amendment Bill will address this deficiency.

The draft Bill proposes replacing Section 32/3 with procedures requiring active participation from ISPs. Under the proposed amendments, copyright holders submit notifications in writing to the relevant ISPs. These notifications will request the ISPs to block access to infringing content. The notifications must set out details as prescribed by law such as the identity of the work infringed and the location of the infringing content.

Once the copyright holder submits the notification to an ISP, the ISP must comply with the notification and notify the alleged infringer of the copyright holder's claims. The alleged infringer can submit a response in writing. If the alleged infringer submits a response, the ISP must notify the copyright holder restoration of the alleged infringing content will take place within 15 days of the ISP's receipt of the infringer's response, unless the copyright holder commences a court action against the alleged infringer by that time.

The procedural changes in the draft Bill will make it easier for copyright holders to protect against online infringement. This welcome modification reflects Thailand's desire for the Thai Copyright Act to keep pace with the modifications in technology that make it easier for copyright infringement to exist online.

We will monitor the draft Bill's progress and provide further updates on all significant developments.

Treloar-Peter-100
Treloar-Peter-100

Daniel Greif

Dhanasun Chumchuay

Spruson & Ferguson

Nos. 496-502 Amarin Plaza BuildingUnit Nos. 1806-1807, 18th Floor, Ploenchit Road, Lumpini Sub-District, Pathumwan District, Bangkok 10330 Thailand

Tel: +66 2 305 6893

mail.asia@spruson.com

www.spruson.com

more from across site and ros bottom lb

More from across our site

Managing IP goes behind the scenes to uncover what happens when setting up an SEP licensing programme for electric vehicle chargers, and discovers why law firms play a crucial role
Exclusive data and in-house analysis show that law firms are able to respond quickly when engaging with in-house clients but struggle to make the grade when it comes to the quality of their answers
Penelope Aspinall, of wellbeing charity Jonathan’s Voice, explains why a newly published mental health hub for the IP community could prove to be a vital resource
The dispute, which centres on the patentability of a computer program, has seen multiple twists and turns
Paul Hastings said the hire of litigator Alex Morgan underscores the firm’s commitment to strengthening its London-based IP team
The Unified Patent Court’s first FRAND judgment, a patent blow for Samsung, and a new design law treaty were among the top IP stories this week
Leaders at Morgan Lewis discuss the firm’s bold ambitions for Europe and why it feels it can offer a boutique experience within a full-service setting
Firms in Canada explain how they’ve adapted to a rule change in 2017 that has made advocacy skills more important in pharma disputes
Leaders at some IP businesses are looking to consolidate the fragmented market and, considering the benefits, their rivals may want to follow suit
Counsel at three US firms explain how they are expanding their UPC teams or if they are looking to partner with European firms
Gift this article