Use of an Injunction to Order Access Providers to Disable Access to Copyright Infringing Materials


  • ์Narach Srihatai ์NIDA University


Disable access, Copyright, Website blocking, Filtering content


          The purpose of this research is to analyze legislation options and procedures for obtaining an injunction ordering access providers to disable access to copyright infringing materials. This method has gained popularity in the European Union (EU), Singapore and Australia as an alternative to solve the problems experienced with a ‘Notice and Takedown’ approach when servers and contents are located outside of certain jurisdictions.

          This is a qualitative study that aims to compare both the legal basis and practical processes used to award injunctions based on the principle of proportion that balances the interests of rights holders against rights such as freedom of expression. This study also purports to make a recommendation of a “best practices” model for the Kingdom of Thailand based on an analysis of the advantages and disadvantages as shown through legislation and case law from the European Union, United Kingdom, Singapore and Australia. This study also provides a historical analysis of the legislative and legal framework that Thailand has used to attempt to initiate a similar junction process. Especially the amended Computer Crime Act was meant to address these problems, but ultimately ran into unique problems of its own in practice; namely these were the application of the principle of proportion test rather than treating the issues of national security and copyright as separate issues. Furthermore, from a due process perspective this amended act was never clear in how copyright issues should be treated.

          In conclusion, this study makes a recommendation of how an effective injunction process to enhance copyright protection in Thailand can be created as follows: First, amend the Copyright Act to include specific language authorizing injunctions by the Courts. Secondly, a process with clear steps for how to obtain and enforce an injunction should be provided. Finally, injunctions for the sake of protecting copyright should be viewed under the basis of copyright separately subject to the principle of proportion. Incorporating these recommendations, along with best practices from the examples provided, would give Thailand a solid basis for effective copyright protection. 


Banjerd Singkaneti. (2015). Lakkhwāmdaisatsūan (principle of proportionality) nai kāntrūatsō̜p khobkhed ʻamnātrat tāmmāttrā 29 khō̜ng ratthathammanūn hǣng rātchaʻānāčhak Thai (phutthasakrāt 2550) : Rāingān kānsưksāwičhai / dōi Bančhœ̄t Singkhanēti, hūanā khana phūwičhai. Bangkok : The Constitutional Court of the Kingdom of Thailand , (2015) – 12.

Barwick, H. (2014). ACMA signs online child abuse notification scheme with police. (2018, January 12) Retrieved from

Cory, N. (2016). How Website Blocking Is Curbing Digital Piracy Without ‘Breaking the Internet’. Journal of Information Technology and Innovation Foundation, August.

Coudert, F., & Werkers, E. (2010). In the Aftermath of the Promusicae Case: How to Strike the Balance?’. International Journal of Law and Information Technology, 18., 1, 50-71.

Curran, J., eds. (2015), Comparative study on Blocking, Filtering And Take-Down of Illegal Internet Content (United Kingdom). Swiss Institute of Comparative Law. (2019, August 1). Retrieved from

Daly, M. (2013). Is there an entitlement to anonymity? A European and international analysis. European Intellectual Property Review, 35(4), 198-211.

Feiler, L. (2012). Website Blocking Injunctions under EU and US Copyright Law—Slow Death of the Global Internet or Emergence of the Rule of National Copyright Law?., TTLF Working Papers No. 13.

Husovec, M. (2017). Injunctions Against Intermediaries in the European Union: Accountable But Not Liable? (Vol. 41). Cambridge University Press.

Jan, B., Stoll, P. and Arend, K. (2008). WTO-Trade-related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights. Max Planck Institute For Comparative Public Law and International Law, Laiden:Martinus Nijihoff Publisher, 2009.

Latifi, J., et al. (2015). Comparative study on blocking, filtering and take-down of illegal internet content. (2018, April 10) Retrieved from

Lindsay, D. (2017). Website blocking injunctions to prevent copyright infringements: Proportionality and effectiveness. UNSWLJ, 40, 1507-1538.

Motion Picture Association, Thailand’s Piracy Landscape., (2018, July 10) Retrieved from

Onisor, A. C, (2016). Fighting Online Copyright Infringements. A Neutral Role of Internet Access Providers. Revista Romana de Drept al Afacerilor, No. 11, 79.

Riordan, J. (2017). Website Blocking Injunctions under United Kingdom and European Law. In Secondary Liability of Internet Service Providers.Springer, Cham., pp.275-315

Roy, A., & Marsoof, A. (2016). The blocking injunction: a comparative and critical review of the EU, Singaporean and Australian regimes. Singaporean and Australian Regimes. European Intellectual Property Review, 38, 92-95.

Sathaporn Sornsena.(2018, October 29) Interview. Competent authority of: Ministry of Digital Economy and Society.

Sawatree Suksri. (2015). wan rāng พ.ร.บ. khō̜m chabap mai pœ̄t chō̜ng hai līang māttrā yīsip sang pit wepsai. (2018, August 31). Retrieved from

Sawatree Suksri. (2010). Situational report on control and censorship of online media, through the use of laws and the imposition of Thai state policies / by the research team on "The effect of the computer crime act 2007 and state policy on the right to freedom of expression" [Bangkok]: iLaw Project

Savola, P. (2015). Internet connectivity providers as involuntary copyright enforcers: blocking websites in particular, Doctoral Dissertation Faculty of Law. Unniversity of Helsinki, FInland.

Schlesinger, M. (2018). Site Blocking Global Best Practices. Discussion paper summited to Prime Minister Shinzo Abe. (2018, April 1). Retrieved from

Spies, A. & Nagy, C. (2015) The new website blocking power: s 115A of the Copyright Act, Australian Intellectual Property Law Bulletin. October 2015, 210-215.

Takis, T. (2006). The General Principles of EU Law. Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Wang, F. (2014). Site-blocking Orders in the EU: Justifications and Feasibility. In 14th Annual Intellectual Property Scholars Conference (IPSC), Boalt Hall School of Law, University of California, Berkeley. USA

Weerawit Lertratthamrongkul & Sureelak Raksakhen. (2018). sērīphāp nai kān sadǣng khwāmkhithen tām ratthammanūn bon khrư̄akhāi sangkhom ʻō̜nlai phāitai kānbangkhap chai phrarātchabanyat wādūai kārok ra khwāmphit kīeokap khō̜mphiutœ̄ chabap thī sō̜ng Phō̜.Sō̜. sō̜ngphanhārō̜ihoksip. Academic journals of North-east University 8., 2, 26-41.

Wesselingh, E. (2014). Website Blocking: Evolution or Revolution? 10 Years of Copyright Enforcement by Private Third Parties. In Internet, Law and Politics. A Decade of Transformations. Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Internet, Law & Politics. Universitat Oberta de Catalunya, Barcelona

Worachet Pakeerut. (2000) ngư̄ankhai nai kān trā kotmāi kat sitthi læ sērīphāp khō̜ng prachāchon ; māt nai kān khūapkhum trūat sō̜p khwāmchō̜p dūai ratthammanūn khō̜ng kotmāI. Law Journals 30.,2,190-191.




How to Cite

Srihatai ์. (2019). Use of an Injunction to Order Access Providers to Disable Access to Copyright Infringing Materials. Journal of Thai Ombudsman, 19(2), 69–111. Retrieved from



Research Article