Thailand’s 2025 Watch List Status in the USTR Special 301 Report: Evolving Copyright Protections for Digital Content Creators

Thailand’s digital economy, powered by music, film, and streaming keeps growing, yet intellectual property (IP) problems have not disappeared. In April 2025, the U.S. Trade Representative’s Special 301 Report kept Thailand on the Watch List: signs of better coordination are there, but enforcement gaps remain. This blog explains what that status means, how piracy continues to challenge rights holders, what the latest copyright tweaks aim to fix for streaming, and where tensions between local creators and global studios shape the policy debate. It also looks ahead to how bilateral pathways might make cross-border licensing simpler.

Thailand’s Status in the 2025 Special 301 Report

The Special 301 Report reviews how the U.S. trading partners protect IP. In 2025, Thailand stayed on the Watch List, one step below the Priority Watch List, signaling continuing concerns despite progress. The report covers more than 100 partners and lists 26 for IP weaknesses; for Thailand, the positives include efforts to reduce patent backlogs and align with international treaties. The negatives focus on enforcement, especially online. Rights holders say piracy drains revenue in the billions, while the USTR urges faster, stronger action. Thailand is caught between moving reforms forward and resisting outside pressure for tighter rules that may not fit every local need.

Ongoing Issues in Digital Piracy Enforcement

Online piracy remains a core concern. Illicit streaming devices and IPTV apps make it easy to access pirated films and TV - both Hollywood titles and local shows. Rights holders argue that enforcement too often hits small retail sellers rather than the distributors and manufacturers driving the market. Criminal cases move slowly, and penalties are low, so deterrence is weak. A 2021 memorandum of understanding with e-commerce platforms helped take down some listings, but stakeholders still report rising counterfeit sales and sluggish civil suits with minimal damages. Even with more raids and seizures, tech-savvy users and weak border checks keep the ecosystem alive. The call from stakeholders is consistent: speed up procedures and raise the cost of infringement in a streaming-led market where creator revenues are directly at risk.

[Image Sources: Shutterstock]

Recent Legislative Tweaks for Streaming IP

Legal reforms are moving in parallel with enforcement. Draft amendments to the Copyright Act B.E. 2537 (1994), approved in principle by the Cabinet in April 2024, support accession to the WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty (WPPT). These changes strengthen protection for performers and producers, including moral rights, while clarifying digital rights around streaming, unauthorized broadcasts, and downloads. The goal is to speed up online takedowns and impose sharper penalties for repeat violators. Through mid-2025, the drafts were refined through public hearings to keep pace with new technologies, including AI-related content. The USTR welcomes the direction, but urges swift, effective implementation. In film and video, a new “Film Law” to replace the Motion Picture and Video Act advanced in late 2024, alongside steps to remove foreign-content quotas, measures intended to give streaming platforms more confidence in the Thai market.

Tension Between Local Creator Economies and Foreign Media Giants

Reform is never merely a matter of law, but also concerns who is permitted to create and generate income. In Thailand, the freelance creative industry, comprising - YouTubers, independent filmmakers, small studios, all depend greatly on access to tools, resources and collaborative opportunities. It has been argued that strict and enforced licensing could lead to overregulation, driving these small creators out of the market. At the same time, piracy also harms to these very creators, depriving them of advertising and subscription revenue. Yet again, the foreign media giants and music producers and recorders continue to call for a tougher legislation, labeling Thailand as a source of pirated content that is corroding and corrupting international markets. Critics, however, fear that transitioning into U.S-style copyright regime would impose heavy compliance burdens on local creators, while the major platform companies would be the ones ultimately benefiting from such policy changes. The pressing question that remains is how to strengthen copyright protection without shutting the door to opportunities for local creators.

Forecasting Analytical Pathways for Bilateral Agreements

Cross-border licensing of streaming content is problematic, because different jurisdictions have varying laws and regulations on copyright authorization, takedown, and standards of evidence. Among the solutions to these challenges is the U.S-Thailand Trade and investment Frame Work agreement (TIFA) which could incorporate special intellectual property chapters to make licensing regulations predictable between the two parties including mutual recognition. Another strategy could be boosting IP collaboration through technology sharing like AI piracy detection tools or training Thai officials. These negotiations are underway in 2025 with potential agreements by 2026. But any solution must be wary of the sovereignty concerns: Thailand is cautious of the U.S- style DMCA takedowns which might dampen speech and wants a reciprocal market access for Thai content. The analytical models cited in these debates indicated that, in the case of effectively designed bilateral measures, there will be a fall of 20-30 % in piracy, and licensed exports and sector will be boosted.

Conclusion

Thailand’s 2025 Watch List status sums up the moment: real legislative motion, uneven enforcement. The new copyright amendments aim to protect performers and producers in the streaming era, speed up takedowns, and update penalties. The film-law track and removal of quotas are designed to make the market more attractive for platforms and investors. Yet online piracy persists, and many cases still move too slowly to deter repeat offenders. Local creators need space to build sustainable businesses; foreign rights holders need confidence that their works won’t be endlessly copied. The sweet spot lies in credible, timely enforcement that focuses on upstream actors; clearer, digital-age rules that reflect how content is distributed; and cooperation with trade partners to simplify cross-border licensing without exporting rules that do not fit domestic realities. As Thailand advances these reforms, the test will be simple: do creators, local and foreign, see faster remedies, fairer returns, and fewer gray-area hurdles when they try to license, distribute, or protect their work? If the answer turns “yes,” the benefits will extend beyond entertainment into Thailand’s broader digital economy.

Author: Amrita Pradhan, in case of any queries please contact/write back to us via email to chhavi@khuranaandkhurana.com or at  Khurana & Khurana, Advocates and IP Attorney.

References

1.     Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, 2025 Special 301 Report on Intellectual Property Protection and Enforcement 45-47 (2025), https://ustr.gov/sites/default/files/reports/2025%20Special%20301%20Report.pdf.

2.     19 U.S.C. § 2242 (2018); see also Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, Special 301, https://ustr.gov/issue-areas/intellectual-property/special-301 (last visited Aug. 17, 2025).

3.     Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, USTR Releases 2025 Special 301 Report on Intellectual Property Protection and Enforcement (Apr. 29, 2025), https://ustr.gov/about/policy-offices/press-office/press-releases/2025/april/ustr-releases-2025-special-301-report-intellectual-property-protection-and-enforcement.

4.     International Intellectual Property Alliance, 2025 Special 301 Report on Copyright Protection and Enforcement: Thailand 4-6 (2025).

5.     Memorandum of Understanding on Cooperation to Combat Trade in Counterfeit Goods, Thai Ministry of Commerce - E-commerce Platforms, May 15, 2021.

6.     WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty, Dec. 20, 1996, S. Treaty Doc. No. 105-17, 36 I.L.M. 76.

7.     Ministry of Commerce, Thailand, Cabinet Approves Draft Amendment to Copyright Act B.E. 2537 (1994) in Principle (Apr. 23, 2024), https://www.moc.go.th/index.php/news/view/7654.

8.     Draft Film Act B.E. 2567 (2024), Royal Thai Government Gazette (proposed Dec. 2024).

9.     Julie E. Cohen, Copyright as Censorship, 43 U.C. Davis L. Rev. 499, 523-27 (2009).

10.   Recording Industry Ass’n of Am., Music Piracy Report: Global Trends and Enforcement Challenges 28-31 (2024).

11.  See Peter K. Yu, The DMCA Safe Harbor and Its European Variations, 35 Colum. J.L. & Arts 341, 365-68 (2012).

12.  U.S.-Thailand Trade and Investment Framework Agreement, Oct. 23, 2002, https://ustr.gov/sites/default/files/uploads/agreements/tifa/asset_upload_file99_7985.pdf.

13.  Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, Countries & Regions: Thailand, https://ustr.gov/countries-regions/southeast-asia-pacific/thailand.

14.  Digital Millennium Copyright Act, Pub. L. No. 105-304, 112 Stat. 2860 (1998) (codified as amended in scattered sections of 17 U.S.C.).

15.  Brett Danaher et al., The Effect of Graduated Response Anti-Piracy Laws on Music Sales: Evidence from a Natural Experiment in France, 62 J. Indus. Econ. 541, 563-65 (2014).