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 | 2 min read | 12.19.25
GAO Cautions Agencies—Over-Redact at Your Own Peril
Bid protest practitioners in recent years have witnessed agencies’ increasing efforts to limit the production of documents and information in response to Government Accountability Office (GAO) bid protests—often will little pushback from GAO. This practice has underscored the notable difference in the scope of bid protest records before GAO versus the Court of Federal Claims. However, in Tiger Natural Gas, Inc., B-423744, Dec. 10, 2025, 2025 CPD ¶ __, GAO made clear that there are limits to the scope of redactions, and GAO will sustain a protest where there is insufficient evidence that the agency’s actions were reasonable.
Client Alert | 7 min read | 12.19.25
In Bid to Ban “Woke AI,” White House Imposes Transparency Requirements on Contractors
Client Alert | 5 min read | 12.19.25
Navigating California’s Evolving Microplastics Landscape in 2026
Client Alert | 19 min read | 12.18.25
2025 GAO Bid Protest Annual Report: Where Have All the Protests Gone?
