On February 2, 2023, Vietnamese internet users experienced a significant shift as major illegal soccer streaming websites became inaccessible. This move was part of a broader initiative to enforce copyright laws more rigorously across the digital landscape. State media and social networks disseminated official announcements, framing the shutdowns as a necessary step in combating piracy in sports and film—a sector that had long existed in a tolerated gray area.
Despite the clear message from authorities, the public reaction revealed a more nuanced perspective. While many users accepted the need for stricter copyright enforcement, they expressed a sense of loss for platforms that had become integral to their daily routines. The disappointment was not merely about the absence of free content but stemmed from the perception that legal alternatives had not yet reached a satisfactory standard.
The Normalization of Piracy in Vietnam
For decades, practices such as using cracked software and streaming pirated films have become normalized within Vietnam’s digital culture. These activities were often shared openly in Facebook groups and chat applications, framed more as helpful tips than illegal behavior. This normalization stems from a moral disconnect. Engaging with pirated content rarely feels like theft, as the rights holders—typically large, international corporations—seem distant and abstract.
The weak enforcement of copyright law has further contributed to this mindset. Although Vietnam has copyright regulations on the books, penalties for end users have historically been infrequent. This lack of enforcement made the legal risks feel theoretical to many. Coupled with the legacy of a subsidized economy, where culture was expected to be affordable or free, many consumers grew up believing that leisure should not entail significant financial burdens.
The Challenges Facing Legal Streaming Services
The endurance of pirate platforms cannot be solely attributed to price. Official services struggle to match the user experience offered by illegal alternatives. For instance, sports broadcasting has become increasingly fragmented. To watch the English Premier League, one needs a specific subscription, while the Champions League requires another, leading to escalating costs. In contrast, pirate sites provided access to a variety of leagues and tournaments all in one place.
Quality also plays a crucial role. Quý, a soccer enthusiast from Hanoi, recounted his experience with a premium subscription to watch the English Premier League. “Many times, the commentary felt dull and constrained,” he explained. “On pirate streams, commentators were relaxed, joked around, and interacted with viewers, making it more entertaining.” This engaging atmosphere is a significant factor driving users away from legal options.
Film platforms face similar hurdles. Many international films arrive in Vietnam months or even years after their release abroad. Meanwhile, pirate sites often host copies within days, providing timely access to desired content. Mai, a university student in Hanoi, articulated her frustration: “I love films, but many titles are split across platforms like Netflix, Disney, and Amazon Prime. Official subscriptions are expensive for students like us.”
Despite the convenience that pirate platforms provide, they come with hidden risks. Malware, spyware, and data theft are common threats. Additionally, many soccer streaming sites are linked to online gambling ads—activities illegal in Vietnam—creating both legal and social risks for users. While many viewers accept these dangers as abstract, the potential for long-term consequences remains.
The coordinated shutdowns of February 2 may seem decisive, but they are unlikely to eliminate piracy completely. As long as there is demand, supply will adjust through new domains or offshore servers. Pirate platforms can be likened to a digital Hydra: sever one head, and another will emerge.
Vietnam is not isolated in its struggle against piracy. Across Southeast Asia and even in wealthier markets, similar patterns have evolved, often fueled by what many describe as “subscription fatigue.” As content becomes increasingly fragmented, user frustration mounts. Vietnam’s experience reflects a broader global tension between legality and accessibility.
Reassessing the Future of Copyright in Vietnam
The core issue transcends a simple legal versus illegal dichotomy; it raises questions about affordability, accessibility, and trust. Is it reasonable to expect users to respect copyright when accessing similar content requires multiple subscriptions? The challenge lies in determining whether consumers, regulators, or rights holders should adapt first.
Pirate ecosystems have inadvertently created alternative creative spaces where informal commentators and volunteer subtitle translators fill gaps left by official platforms. These contributions are often unrecognized and unregulated, yet they hold significant value for audiences.
The real policy challenge for Vietnam is not merely about enforcing copyright but about designing a market that attracts users. This means creating a legal framework that offers compelling experiences and demonstrates value, rather than relying solely on enforcement.
The blackout of February 2 was more than the removal of illegal websites; it prompted millions of Vietnamese users to reevaluate the state of their digital content. The question is not if content should be paid for, but whether the legal market can effectively compete and provide a satisfactory alternative. Copyright enforcement can eliminate platforms, but true loyalty will depend on the ability of legal services to offer affordability, accessibility, and engaging experiences that can fill the void left by the disappearance of these popular sites.
