ISP-Liability & Media Law
Client Alert | 2 min read | 12.15.08
Other sections of this issue:
Privacy & Data Protection | ISP-Liability & Media Law | Contracts & E-Commerce |
Electronic Communications & IT
The online platform Wizzgo was recently condemned in France. Wizzgo provided a service allowing subscribers to obtain, via the internet, recordings of television programs broadcast inter alia by the French broadcasters M6, W9 and Télévision française. According to a Paris Court, Wizzgo’s service constitutes a copyright infringement and is not comparable with the functioning of a mere video recorder.
Introduction
Wizzgo is an online platform that allows subscribers to identify television programs that they wish to record. Once subscribers have made their selection, Wizzgo automatically makes a copy of the broadcast of the program (which it refers to as a mere "cache copy"), and then sends a watermarked and encrypted copy to the subscriber concerned (which it refers to as the "private copy"). Wizzgo was summoned by a number of French broadcasters that considered that Wizzgo violated their copyrights and, in subsidiary order, their trademark rights.
The decision
The Paris Court of First Instance rejected Wizzgo's argument that it only made a "cache copy" of the programs concerned (cache copies do not require the copyright holder's consent) and also held that the copy made by Wizzgo furthermore did not amount to a private copy made by an individual (private copies do not require the copyright holder's consent either).
Rather, the Court of First Instance has assimilated Wizzgo's activities to the provision of video-on-demand services and has therefore condemned Wizzgo to a compensation that was more or less equal to the income that the broadcasters would have generated had they applied their usual video-on-demand rates.
Wizzgo was also condemned for having infringed the trademarks of two of the broadcasters.
References: Judgment of the Paris Court of First Instance of 26 November 2008 [PDF]
For more information, contact: Christoph De Preter or Thomas De Meese.
Contacts
Insights
Client Alert | 5 min read | 12.12.25
Eleventh Circuit Hears Argument on False Claims Act Qui Tam Constitutionality
On the morning of December 12, 2025, the Eleventh Circuit heard argument in United States ex rel. Zafirov v. Florida Medical Associates, LLC, et al., No. 24-13581 (11th Cir. 2025). This case concerns the constitutionality of the False Claims Act (FCA) qui tam provisions and a groundbreaking September 2024 opinion in which the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida held that the FCA’s qui tam provisions were unconstitutional under Article II. See United States ex rel. Zafirov v. Fla. Med. Assocs., LLC, 751 F. Supp. 3d 1293 (M.D. Fla. 2024). That decision, penned by District Judge Kathryn Kimball Mizelle, was the first success story for a legal theory that has been gaining steam ever since Justices Thomas, Barrett, and Kavanaugh indicated they would be willing to consider arguments about the constitutionality of the qui tam provisions in U.S. ex rel. Polansky v. Exec. Health Res., 599 U.S. 419 (2023). In her opinion, Judge Mizelle held (1) qui tam relators are officers of the U.S. who must be appointed under the Appointments Clause; and (2) historical practice treating qui tam and similar relators as less than “officers” for constitutional purposes was not enough to save the qui tam provisions from the fundamental Article II infirmity the court identified. That ruling was appealed and, after full briefing, including by the government and a bevy of amici, the litigants stepped up to the plate this morning for oral argument.
Client Alert | 8 min read | 12.11.25
Director Squires Revamps the Workings of the U.S. Patent Office
Client Alert | 8 min read | 12.10.25
Creativity You Can Use: CJEU Clarifies Copyright for Applied Art
Client Alert | 4 min read | 12.10.25
Federal Court Strikes Down Interior Order Suspending Wind Energy Development
