Address copyright infringement at its source.

Police forces raided the headquarters of the "Xoi Lac TV" network. (Photo A05)

Directive No. 38/CD-TTg dated May 5, 2026, mandates decisive action against intellectual property infringement. Regarding online copyright, this requirement goes beyond simply removing more infringing links or blocking more websites; it demands thorough identification and resolution of the underlying ecosystem, as well as addressing bottlenecks in digital evidence for administrative, civil, and criminal proceedings.

The ecosystem behind pirated websites

Immediately after the issuance of Directive No. 38/CD-TTg on focusing on decisively implementing solutions to combat, prevent, and handle acts of intellectual property infringement, a series of illegal movie websites and websites specializing in providing cracked and illegally localized games proactively announced their cessation of operations. Many community translation groups (fansubs) also quickly removed archived files and deleted posts sharing movie download links on social networks and cloud storage platforms, demonstrating the immediate impact of the crackdown on the illegal digital content market.

However, many experts argue that behind a pirated movie website, an illegal content streaming application, or an unlicensed internet television (IPTV) service package lies a system of domain names, servers, advertising accounts, payment wallets, customer service teams, user data, and multiple layers of intermediaries. A pirated website is an operating model, not just a link. Therefore, if you only remove one link, the operator can still create a new one; if you block one domain name, another can appear; if you only deal with the final sales account, the source of distribution and the flow of money still exist.

According to cybersecurity expert Ngo Minh Hieu, Director of the Anti-Fraud Organization and a member of the Vietnam National Cybersecurity Association, copyright-infringing websites often don't disappear completely after being blocked. They may change domain names, use subdomains, move servers abroad, use content delivery networks (CDNs), proxy servers, mirror sites, or distribute links through social networks like Telegram, Facebook, and private groups to lure users back.

Therefore, simply blocking individual domains is like "cutting off the branches," while the underlying system continues to operate. A more effective approach is to address the entire ecosystem, from the source of pirated content, technical infrastructure, advertising, payments, receiving accounts, to the operating groups. The difficulty lies in the fact that many components may be located abroad, using hidden identities, constantly changing infrastructure, and exploiting legitimate platforms to conceal their activities.

Legally, the Intellectual Property Law already provides for the right to request the removal or deletion of infringing content online, as well as civil and temporary emergency measures such as removing, hiding, or disabling access to information, content, accounts, websites, applications, or internet addresses related to the infringement. However, for these legal tools to be effective, the prerequisite remains a sufficiently reliable digital evidence file capable of proving the infringement, the time of the infringement, the infringing party, and the scope of dissemination.

Currently, the debated issues concern the timing, origin, and integrity of digital evidence in handling online copyright infringement. For example, screenshots may be suspected of being manipulated, links may disappear, files may be altered, accounts may be renamed, and servers may be redirected.

Bailiff's records are valuable for documenting the current state of affairs at a specific point in time. However, with pirated websites, apps, or internet-based television, these records do not automatically prove who operates the server, who controls the domain name, who collects the money, how much revenue is generated, how many users there are, or how long the system has been operating. This is a bottleneck in online copyright enforcement.

According to lawyer Le Quang Vinh, Director of Bross & Partners Intellectual Property Company, in an online copyright case, good evidence should include a record of the operation, the time of recording, rights information, a comparison of the original and infringing content, domain name information, account details, payment methods, advertising data if available, and a report explaining the connection between these traces.

In online copyright cases, the timing of data recording and the methods used to ensure that the data has not been altered are of great importance. Therefore, digital signatures, timestamps, and data integrity verification mechanisms can help prove when data existed, how it was recorded, and whether it has been altered.

From a technical perspective, expert Ngo Minh Hieu also noted that evidence collection requires recording the full website address (URL), screenshots, videos of the access process, domain name information, server, advertising account, payment account, and related data if available.

More importantly, data must be collected through a clear process, with a time-based verification, ensuring integrity and minimizing the possibility of being perceived as having been altered or manipulated. When necessary, rights holders should cooperate with relevant authorities, expert appraisal units, or bailiffs to enhance their probative value.

Solutions to address the root cause

In the context of online copyright infringement, Judgment No. 244/2024/HSST dated April 19, 2024, of the Hanoi People's Court concerning copyright and related rights infringement is a notable example. The system operator used multiple domain names, advertised services, provided links for users to watch live English Premier League football matches and foreign films, sold service packages for $9 USD/month, received payments via e-wallets, and then transferred them to a bank account in Vietnam.

The court determined that the defendant had profited illegally and declared him guilty of infringing copyright and related rights under Article 225 of the Penal Code. The verdict clearly showed the operational structure, which included multiple domain names, advertising, providing links, selling packages for $9/month, receiving payments via e-wallets, and transferring money to bank accounts.

This case demonstrates that effective online copyright enforcement requires clarification of who sells the service, who provides the links, who receives the money, where the money goes, how the domain name system is used, and how users access infringing content. If the infringing system continues to generate revenue from advertising, e-wallets, bank accounts, or payment gateways, blocking the domain name will not be sufficient to deter violations. A mechanism to "cut off the flow of money" to organized infringing systems is needed.

To address the root cause, it is necessary to clarify the coordinated responsibilities of digital platforms, intermediary service providers, advertising agencies, payment service providers, data storage service providers, domain name registrars, and other related entities in providing data, controlling repeat offenses, and preventing the continued exploitation of digital infrastructure for infringing activities.

According to expert Ngo Minh Hieu, handling online copyright infringement requires a rapid coordination mechanism between copyright owners, regulatory agencies, network operators, digital platforms, advertising and payment units; and also requires the application of technology to detect pirated websites, pirated livestreams, copied content, and domain name regeneration systems early.

He also suggested that some typical cases should be dealt with severely, especially large-scale, organized networks, and that the media should educate users about the potential risks of pirated content, malware, malicious advertising, account theft, and personal data leaks.

Emphasizing the importance of selecting exemplary cases with clear revenue-generating models for handling, intellectual property legal expert Truong Anh Tu, Chairman of Truong Anh Tu Law Firm (TAT Law Firm), stated that resources should not be spread thin across thousands of small links if the large operating systems remain intact. Exemplary cases should be those with clearly infringed content, clearly identified rights holders, a clear revenue or advertising model, sufficiently robust technical data, and the potential to create a deterrent effect on the market.

Protecting online copyright cannot simply be a "race" to remove links; it must be about the ability to transform digital data into evidence, evidence into legal liability, and each case into a deterrent signal. By doing so, Vietnam will not only protect content owners but also safeguard the creative industry, the digital business environment, and the inherent capacity of the digital economy .

VINH QUY

Source: https://nhandan.vn/xu-ly-vi-pham-ban-quyen-tu-goc-post962518.html