Content blocking is a major anti-piracy tool to prevent access to copyright infringements. There is a debate as to how far it should go. Internet infrastructure companies are objecting that it targets DNS resolvers as well as ISPs. These are indexers that facilitate easy access to websites. But with copyright infringement so widespread it is important to maintain, even expand the solutions in some countries. Content removal systems in South East Asian countries vary in procedure and effectiveness. Some require court orders, others use administrative procedures. Here is a quick summary of the major markets.
1. The Philippines
IPOPHL, the IP office runs a system under its Memorandum Circular 2023-025 - Rules on Voluntary Administrative Site Blocking. This enables copyright holders to file complaints which are then published and sent to ISPs for action, usually removal after appropriate notices periods and response times. They issued 2 requests at the request of the MPA to disable access to six domains and subdomains found pirating movies, to coincide with the celebration of National Anti-Piracy Month during October 2024.
2. Indonesia
DGIP operates a content blocking system under the Copyright law. Complaints are filed with DGIP then once the copyright breach is approved, they are sent to KOMINFO, (the Ministry of Communications), who then issues the content blocking order to the ISP or website. Copyright owners have successfully reported long lists of content links this way, but there are concerns that the process is a little slow and that mirror sites often appear overseas straight away. The ITE law also requires ISPs to remove content open receipt of takedown notices but this can be time consuming.
3. Vietnam
Vietnam's IP Law regulates ISPs’ responsibility and requires them to block infringing content upon receipt of valid reports from rights holders and/or authorities. The Authority of Broadcasting and Electronic Information (ABEI), under the Ministry of Information and Communications, then conducts the site-blocking. Between August 2022 and August 2023, authorities, in collaboration with rights holders and ISPs, blocked nearly 1,000 piracy websites. However, many infringing sites use international domain names, conceal registrant information, and quickly change domains after being blocked, making enforcement practically challenging.
4. Thailand
The Computer Crime Act (CCA) 2017 Section 20(3), allows authorities to request court orders to block websites that host IP infringing content. Thai government reported that, from 1 Oct 2023 to 30 September 2024, the Ministry of Digital Economy and Society (MDES) blocked 150,425 social media contents, pages and URLs—over eight times more than the previous year. Most of these blocks relate to gambling and fraud as well as copyright. However, the blocking process for IP infringement is arguably too cumbersome, as it involves multiple authorities, including the police, the Department of Intellectual Property, MDES, and the Court. In practice, blocks for IP infringement have been slow and not strictly enforced with ISPs.
5. Malaysia
The Ministry of Domestic Trade and Consumer Affairs can order the blocking of illegal content under Section 41 Copyright Act 1987. The blocking is carried out by the Malaysian Communications and Multimedia Commission ordering the ISPs to remove the content. Of the 24,277 websites blocked between 2018-24, 14% were due to copyright infringement. ISPs are currently being asked to comply with new rules requiring DNS redirection, to enable greater control to be exercised by the government. This routes more content through local ISPs but is controversial as it can restrict some legitimate overseas content access and slow speeds.
6. Singapore
Singapore usually requires a court order to block copyright content. Copyright notices can also be issued to ISPs too. The court system is intended to be a ‘no fault’ process, so there is no liability by the ISP but the issue of disproportionate compliance costs of removal and legal costs can complicate cases. Singapore is currently reviewing whether amend its anti-technological circumvention rules, partly because the problem of streaming sometimes requires hacking of these controls to access the copyright work.
This article was first published on Anti Piracy News.
