Reviewed by:
Rating:
5
On 08.04.2020
Last modified:08.04.2020

Summary:

- eine Yacht liegen bleibt. Was ist quasi ber, mit deutschen Filmen auf dem vierten Season von Bassam ist der Firma Spectral Sightings, die Mine zur Hand regiert.

Alternative F�R Kinox.To

Du möchtest das Angebot von agbshop.eu nutzen? Wir zeigen dir hier wie du das sicher und ohne Angst vor Konsequenzen haben zu müssen, tun. Film Streaming Seiten. agbshop.eu agbshop.eu agbshop.eu agbshop.eu agbshop.eu agbshop.eu Die Nutzung von Streaming-Portalen wie agbshop.eu verstößt gegen das Gesetz. Wir stellen euch die besten legalen Streaming-Alternativen vor.

Alternative F�R Kinox.To Warum ist Kinox.to illegal?

Film Streaming Seiten. agbshop.eu agbshop.eu agbshop.eu agbshop.eu agbshop.eu agbshop.eu Serien Streaming Seiten. 4K-HD agbshop.eu Burning Series. Couch Tuner. agbshop.eu Flash Moviez TV. agbshop.eu Sport Streaming Seiten. agbshop.eu agbshop.eu agbshop.eu LiveTV. MamaHD. agbshop.eu Plattformen wie Movie4k, agbshop.eu und agbshop.eu werden immer häufiger eingeschränkt. Doch gibt es kostenlose Alternativen? ✅ Alles zum. Habe auch eine Weile lang nach einer Alternative zu agbshop.eu gesucht, da die Filme nach Tageszeit schon recht langsam laden. Statt agbshop.eu Du möchtest das Angebot von agbshop.eu nutzen? Wir zeigen dir hier wie du das sicher und ohne Angst vor Konsequenzen haben zu müssen, tun. Kinox und 48 weitere tolle Seiten, die ähnlich wie Kinox oder eine Alternative zu Kinox sind.

Alternative F�R Kinox.To

Sport Streaming Seiten. agbshop.eu agbshop.eu agbshop.eu LiveTV. MamaHD. agbshop.eu Alternative für agbshop.eu,agbshop.eu,agbshop.eu Serien Streaming Seiten. 4K-HD agbshop.eu Burning Series. Couch Tuner. agbshop.eu Flash Moviez TV. agbshop.eu

Alternative F�R Kinox.To Account Options Video

Alternative zu Kino to Kostenlose Streaming Anbieter. Die folgende Liste enthält einige der populärsten illegalen Streaming Plattformen – darunter zahlreiche agbshop.eu Alternativen. Wir. Die Nutzung von Streaming-Portalen wie agbshop.eu verstößt gegen das Gesetz. Wir stellen euch die besten legalen Streaming-Alternativen vor. agbshop.eu Alternativen - Illegales Stremingportal agbshop.eu reagiert auf Netzsperren mit zahlreichen "kinox Ersatzdomains" als Alternative. Kostenfreie alternative DNS Server sind auf jedem Gerät sehr einfach nutzbar, in vielen Fällen wird dadurch sogar die Geschwindigkeit spürbar. Alternative für agbshop.eu,agbshop.eu,agbshop.eu Alternative F�R Kinox.To Alternativen zu cinemaxx. Gamber : Hinweis: Nutzer die aktuelle Kinofilme auf kinox. Aus diesem Grund ist es durchaus möglich, Der Navigator unbefugte Dritte auf die übertragenen Daten zurückgreifen können. Der Streaming-Dienst ist nun auch unter kinoz.

Themen-Optionen Druckbare Version zeigen Thema abonnieren…. Welche Streaming-Seiten sind die besten Alternativen zu kino. Da die Seite seit einiger Zeit nicht mehr verfügbar ist, interessiert mich, mit welchen Alternativen ihr die besten Erfahrungen zum Streaming von Filmen und Serien gemacht habt.

Hinweis zur gesetzlichen Einordnung: Das reine Streamen ist rechtlich weiterhin eine Grauzone. Im Gegensatz zum Download stellt es daher keine Urheberrechtsverletzung dar.

Wichtig ist nur, dass die Filme auch tatsächlich flüchtig im RAM sind und nicht dauerhaft auf dem Computer gespeichert werden. Eine Diskussion über Alternativen sollte hier daher möglich sein.

Zumal das reine Verlinken auch bei Downloads kein Strafbestand wäre. AW: Alternativen zu kino. Blog Entries We will not legalize Piracy!!!!!

Give us the right to create! Do not deprive us from our earnings. Respect our property! Sie haben um unsere Meinungen gebeten.

Zu finden sind sie jedenfalls nirgends. Wir fordern von Ihnen Transparenz. Als ich mich entschloss, Ihnen zu antworten, habe ich mir zunächst einmal die Formulierung Ihres Aufrufs zur Beteiligung noch einmal genauer angesehen; sowohl auf Deutsch als auch auf Englisch.

Spiegeln die Pläne der Verwerter wirklich die Interessen aller Kunstschaffenden wider? Do the plans of the collecting societies really reflect the interests of all artists?

Sehr interessant. Dass es sich bei diesen Sprachfassungen um zwei gänzlich unterschiedliche Texte handelt, muss jedem leidlich im Thema Bewanderten ins Auge springen.

Sie verwenden aber beide Begriffe de facto synonym. Die fehlende Sensibilität für diese Fundamentalunterscheidung macht mir Sorgen: Ich kann keine Hinweise darauf erkennen, dass Sie nicht bereit oder sogar längst im Begriff sind, mein Recht auf Selbstbestimmung und mein Recht auf angemessene Vergütung zugunsten eines angloamerikanischen Industrierechts aufzugeben.

Wo dabei im Übrigen auch nur der geringste Vorteil für die Allgemeinheit und die Verbraucher liegen soll, das müssten Sie uns erst einmal schlüssig erklären.

Abzusehen ist, dass neben der materiellen Übermacht zukünftig auch die Verfügungsgewalt über kulturelle Güter in die Hände multinationaler börsennotierter Unternehmen gelangen könnte.

Balance geht anders. Sie vertun sich. Verwertung ist eine im Kern kaufmännische Tätigkeit, die die vom Lizenzgeber erbrachte künstlerische oder publizistische Tätigkeit im kaufmännisch-administrativen Bereich komplementär ergänzt.

In mittlerweile nicht mehr so seltenen Fällen kann es auch eine Personalunion von Lizenzgeber und Verwerter geben; wenn ich mein eigenes Label gründe, meinen eigenen Musikverlag, oder wenn ich einen Film mache, in dem ich meine eigene Musik in Lizenz!

Verwertung ist nichts Illegitimes, sondern eine Notwendigkeit, so lange urheberrechtlich geschütztes Geistiges Eigentum an einen Markt für kulturelle Güter gebracht werden soll.

Sie agieren nicht am Markt. Sie dürfen keinen Gewinn machen. Sie sind auch nicht im oben skizzierten Sinne Lizenznehmer obwohl sie für ihre Arbeit selbstverständlich über Lizenzen verfügen müssen , sondern sie sind Treuhänder: unsere Treuhänder.

Was sie auch nicht sind: Teil der Musikindustrie. Speziell in der Musik sind die Verwertungsgesellschaften die Lebensader jeder Wertschöpfung.

Sie sollten und Ihre Mitarbeiter müssen das wissen. Insofern stellt sich die Frage, welche Absicht mit einer solchen offenkundigen Falschübersetzung verbunden ist.

Vertrieb allerdings leisten die VGs ganz sicher nicht. Oder eben nicht. Womit in aller Regel eine Minderwertigkeit, entweder des Gegenstandes oder aber seines Schöpfers, behauptet wird — eine Minderwertigkeit, aus deren Behauptung man sehr schnell Verschiedenstes ableiten kann, etwa: dass der Gegenstand oder sein Schöpfer nicht schutzwürdig seien; dass die Gesellschaft daran kein Interesse haben könne gleichwohl aber schnellen und günstigen Zugang haben müsse … , dass ohnehin das Konzept des Werkschöpfers in einer Zeit der transformativen Werknutzung … Ach, lassen wir das.

Jedenfalls ist es nicht sinnvoll, hier mit dem Begriff Kunst zu agieren, denn er tut überhaupt nichts zur Sache, und offenbar ist er im englischsprachigen Text auch nicht nötig.

Nein, keineswegs. Meine Kollegen und mich treiben Zukunftssorgen um, die nichts mit Besitzstandswahrung zu tun haben, denn als Kulturschaffende sind wir vertraut mit Kulturwandel, der oft einhergeht mit technologischem und wirtschaftlichem Wandel.

Die heutige Situation ist jedoch neu und anders. Als vor 90 Jahren der Tonfilm die Musiker der Kinoorchester in existenzielle Not stürzte, war es schlicht vorbei mit der Nachfrage nach deren Leistung: Die Musiker wurden nicht mehr gebraucht.

Doch die Erlöse der Rechteinhaber, und zumal die der Autoren, stehen in keinem vernünftigen Verhältnis zu diesem Umfang der Nutzung.

Ganz offensichtlich haben wir es daher mit strukturellen Problemen zu tun. Diesen wird man allerdings allein mit einer Reform des Urheberrechts nicht wirkungsvoll begegnen können.

Und auch die unregulierte Distribution immaterieller Güter ist ein Problem, dem man sich dringend widmen müsste. Es gibt mittlerweile hinlängliche Evidenz dafür, dass wir es hier explizit mit Problemen zu tun haben, die technisch in Europa und Nordamerika verortet sind; also müssen wir uns auch innerhalb dieser Rechtsräume um Lösungen bemühen.

Plausible Lösungsansätze für unsere drängenden, weil existenziellen Nöte liegt jedenfalls nicht in der Regulierung des Urheberrechts allein, und überhaupt sind die wesentlichen Probleme im Urheberrechtsbereich strukturell sehr ähnlich zu denen im Bereich Daten- und Verbraucherschutz.

Nur so kann das Überleben der lokalen, regionalen und nationalen Akteure gewährleistet werden — und nur so kann der nötige Nachschub professionell erstellter Inhalte ermöglicht werden.

Kulturelle Güter sind immer zugleich auch wirtschaftliche Güter. Wird die Funktionsfähigkeit in einem der beiden Bereiche beschädigt, wirkt sich das unmittelbar auf den anderen aus.

Und damit die für die Gesellschaft unverzichtbaren identitätsstiftenden Prozesse kulturellen Schaffens.

Es gibt doch längst einen europäischen Markt; das gewährleisten nicht zuletzt die enorm effizienten europäischen Verwertungsgesellschaften mit ihrem dicht geknüpften Netz von Gegenseitigkeitsverträgen.

Wir haben Freizügigkeit, so ist es uns freigestellt, genau die VG zu wählen, die uns passt. Den Doppelcharakter kultureller Güter laut Unesco Konvention habe ich bereits angesprochen.

Kulturelle Güter sind nicht nur Gegenstand nationaler Identität, sie sind deren Ausdruck und ein wesentliches Instrument der Selbsterneuerung und Selbstvergewisserung.

Reflexion, Innovation, Verhandlung von Werten — all das basiert auf einer funktionierenden Kultur und ihren Protagonisten.

Die national geltenden Rechte fassen nun die jeweils unterschiedlichen Werte, Haltungen, Praktiken in Regelwerke, die sich wiederum auch unterscheiden — so wie sich die Kulturen unterscheiden.

Kurz: Es gibt aus inhaltlicher und damit kultureller Sicht nur Nachteile durch eine strikte Vereinheitlichung europäischer Standards. Auch Schriftsteller, deren Romane für jedes Land hinsichtlich Übersetzung und Veröffentlichung sowie nicht zuletzt auch Verfilmungsrechten einzeln lizenziert werden, werden Ihren Vorstellungen kaum mit Begeisterung begegnen.

Ist das wirklich eine ernstgemeinte Frage? Wenn die Leute sowas machen wollen, dann soll sie es doch machen.

Sie dürfen das ja auch, und zwar auf Basis des geltenden Rechts. Was sie nicht dürfen: Das Ergebnis veröffentlichen, ohne mich gefragt zu haben.

Es verwerten ohne mich zu beteiligen. Was soll daran falsch sein? Das ist nicht nur eine Frage finanzieller Erträge, sondern zunächst mal eine des Respekts mir und meiner Arbeit gegenüber.

Vor allem anderen: Unser Urheberrecht muss als Recht der Urheber fortgeschrieben werden. Es ist der Transmissionsriemen für Kultur, Kulturwirtschaft und Medien.

Es ist kein Verbraucherrecht und kann auch dem Sinn nach keines sein. Konkret drückt es gelegentlich da, wo in der teils erheblichen Asymmetrie des Marktes bei den jeweils kleineren wirtschaftlichen Einheiten — und das sind Urheber und Interpreten per se — die Verhandlungsbasis nicht gegeben ist, die es ihnen ermöglichen würde, sich gegen die Übermacht ihrer Auftraggeber bzw.

Lizenznehmer zu wehren, ohne damit den nächsten Job oder die ganze Karriere zu riskieren. Absolut bizarr waren die Entscheidungen der Politik in der jüngeren Vergangenheit, gesetzlich verbriefte Ansprüche ohne adäquate Durchsetzungsmittel zu verankern.

Das begann bereits mit der Implementierung von Privatkopieabgaben und von Beteiligungsansprüchen an Verwertungserlösen, deren Aushandlung man jedoch, anstatt den Staat damit zu betrauen, in die Asymmetrie der Branche verlagerte.

Vergütungsansprüche in Gesetze zu schreiben ohne sie durchsetzbar zu machen, ist Scharlatanerie. Was für ein ungeheuerlicher Blödsinn.

Es gibt Schranken, es gibt multiple Kontrahierungszwänge und es gibt, völlig jenseits jeder rechtlichen Bestimmung, eine ungeheuer weit reichende Bereitwilligkeit der Kulturschaffenden, Menschen teilhaben zu lassen.

Diese Bereitschaft und der ihr unterliegende Idealismus dürfen jedoch nicht dazu führen, dass Kulturschaffende sich selbst und ihre wirtschaftliche Überlebensfähigkeit aufgeben.

Daher ist es zwingend notwendig, dass das Recht die Bedingungen der Werknutzung definiert: für die Verbraucher, für die Nutzer im terminologischen Sinne und auch für die Rechteinhaber.

Die Annahme, heute sei ja jeder irgendwie ein Urheber, ist für die Urheberrechtsdebatte nicht zielführend. In Ihrer parlamentarischen Funktion jedoch müssen Sie vom Gesetzgeber gewollte, mit der Wahrnehmung gesetzlicher Aufgaben betraute Institutionen zunächst einmal anerkennen.

Niemand verlangt, dass Sie unkritisch sind; das sind wir als Wahrnehmungsberechtigte auch nicht. Wir müssen uns darauf verlassen können, dass Sie Ihr Amt als Mandatsträgerin nicht missbrauchen.

Als Berichterstatterin sind Sie dem Parlament — und damit mittelbar uns als dem Souverän — gegenüber verantwortlich, nicht Ihrer Partei.

Sollten Sie uns vermitteln, dass wir uns darauf verlassen können, dann werden Sie in uns Urhebern und Interpreten, in unseren Verlagen, Labels und Verwertungsgesellschaften und in den Berufs- und Branchenverbänden bestens informierte und konstruktive Ansprechpartner finden.

Aufruf Teil unseres Jobprofils ist, weshalb wir tatsächlich froh sind über jeden, der uns helfen will. Ob und inwieweit Sie das wollen, das wäre nach aktuellem Stand noch zu beweisen.

Komponist Vorsitzender mediamusic e. What you aim to pursue is some kind of modern slavery, solely serving the purpose to maximise the profits of us-american internet companies.

So, do reconsider your purpose in life. Or have you really become a politician just to support Google? There are already plenty of handsomely paid lobbyists.

We are a diverse lot, but in our hearts and minds are workers rights and fair salaries. We are against ideas that put people at risk of not being able to live from their jobs — even if these ideas may sound futuristic or grand.

Have you read the explanations of her report? There is certainly nothing in there that even comes close to your fears; in fact Julia is fighting to strengthen the position of authors in the copyright system.

Julia Reda is a member of the Pirate Party and therefore promotes piracy. Leave us creators alone! Try, instead, to improve the practices of the multinationals who have been profiting for a long time to the detriment of all of us.

Thanks for your comment. Deal Julia! O does NOT make you lose control over your creation. So for example : if a documentarist asks for my music , it is on my own decision if i will give the music.

Nobody forces me to give or not give the music, so there is no way that my creation can be used against my vision.

O will collect my royalties and protect my intellectuel property thats all. Now if an artist is signed with a record company that is not working out for him is another topic.

Nothing has to change but some additions have to be done, for example give the P. Does youtube pays royalties? And if no why? But where do you think the best art will be?

Also regarding paragraph 3, you are talking in general…. But why dont you tell what excactly you are intending to do about this??

Zu den Themen Verwertungsgesellschaften und Selbstbestimmung über das eigene Werk haben meine Vorredner bereits viel Kluges gesagt, sodass ich darauf verweise.

Entsprechend neugierig habe ich die Zusammenfassung Ihres Reports studiert. Sehen Sie es mir bitte nach, aber ich finde ich mich als Urheber dort nicht wieder.

Die überwältigende Mehrheit der mir bekannten Europäer bekommt es indes nur dann mit dem Urheberrecht zu tun respektive sie lamentieren darüber , wenn es um den illegalen Austausch von geschütztem Material geht.

Sie erhielten gewiss ähnlichen Zuspruch, wenn Sie Menschen fragten: Sollten Krankenkassen beitragsfrei sein? Sollten wir Steuern abschaffen? Mit Verlaub, das ist Unsinn.

Und welche Rechte hielten die dann inne? Oder geht es Ihnen hier einmal mehr um das sagenumwobene Remixing?

Finden Sie es unzumutbar, dass ich als Urheber eines Werks gefragt werde, bevor es in einen anderen Zusammenhang gestellt wird? Das alles bleibt undeutlich, und ich möchte Ihnen natürlich keine falschen Absichten unterstellen.

Was ich übrigens überhaupt nicht mehr lesen mag ist dieser kolossale Unsinn über Remixe, Mash-ups et al. Along with the Internet as a zero-cost global publishing medium, this phenomenon has brought about a broad creative revolution, enabling a wealth of emerging practices in which new works are created by transforming existing ones.

Sie insinuieren hier einerseits, dass es sich bei diesen Ausdrucksformen um revolutionär neue, besonders förderungswürdige Techniken handelt.

Das ist, mit Verlaub, grober Unfug. Videos neu vertonen konnte man bereits in den Siebzigern des letzten Jahrhunderts, ebenso aus bestehenden Mehrspuraufnahmen etwas Neues schaffen.

Andererseits fordern Sie für diese Werke besondere Rechtsfreiheiten. Warum eigentlich? Und falls Sie es noch nicht wussten: Im Privaten dürfen Sie remixen und mashupen, bis der sprichwörtliche Arzt kommt.

Ganz ohne schlechtes Gewissen. Und das omnipotente Smartphone war sehr wahrscheinlich auch umsonst. Vielmehr geht es in einem fort um Ausnahmen und Liberalisierung des Marktes.

Das kann und will ich nicht akzeptieren. Bei allem bleiben Sie, liebe Frau Reda, eines ganz besonders schuldig: nämlich ein Modell, wie wir Urheber auch künftig von unserer Arbeit leben sollen.

I have carefully read your opinions and — since you ask for EU creators to express their opinions to you — allow me to share my thoughts with you… First of all, I am forced to point out that the fact that you ask creators to send you an email and be kept anonymous to the public is completely wrong, suspicious and provocative.

If the ones who will eventually agree with you express themselves in public like the rest of us who disagree , it will make your point of view really stronger.

A pirate is defined as 1 One who commits or practices piracy at sea, 2 One who makes use of or reproduces the work of another without authorization and 3 One who illegally intercepts or uses radio or television signals, especially one who operates an illegal television or radio station.

Which of the three definitions represents you the most? Do you even have Piratebay on your bookmarks list? No doubt…. Have you ever thought of the fact that noone forces any creator to join a collecting society?

Have you ever checked how many creators are being protected each and every day by those collecting societies from people who want to use their intellectual work for free?

Have you ever cared about how many families in the European Union and around the world depend on intellectual rights to live a decent life?

Yes, dear! Since noone forced them to sign a contract with the collecting societies! Believe me…. Things are not the same for a creator in Greece and a creator in the United Kingdom.

Trying to globalize everthing is not always the best idea. Certainly not in the case of intellectual property. If it is already a very hard work for a local national collecting society to handle the cases of dozens of thousands of its members, imagine how chaotic it would be to have one — Europa controlled — collecting society.

A single European market is — except from utopic — an idea that has been proven in many cases to be non-functional and dangerous.

As a creator I want my work to be protected and secured by people who belong to the same market with me. I need the organization that represents me and my intellectual rights to be as close to me as possible.

Same goes for any creator in any country, Julia. Have no doubts about it. A centralized organization controlled by European technocrats is not what a creator needs!

Not robots! Creators want a close relation to the people who represent them. Not any employee of the European Community who will be just a receiver of my emails!

Anyone who wants to use or play my music is obliged to ask for my authorization. I really cannot understand how people like you demand that OUR own creations should be given to anyone to change them?

Would you ever give your own child to a stranger to change the way it talks, the way it thinks, the way it communicates, the way YOU raised it to be???????

Users want broad access to information and an end to the criminalization of their everyday behaviour. Creators often find themselves caught in the middle.

There are creators who are professionals and create for a living. These creators are proud members of their respective collecting societies and need their work to be protected.

There are also creators who are amateurs, who have no access to the markets and create for them, their girlfriends and their parents to be proud of them.

You are not allowed to make the mistake of mixing those two different categories! When you refer to laws, collecting societies, intellectual rights, EU rules, legislations, copyrights etc.

For example, a person who writes lyrics and has never published his work, has never participated in a CD, has never been a part of the musical industry in any way, does not give a damn about laws, rules, societies, rights and the rest!

Thus, asking for the opinion of creators I believe you should make clear that you are referring to professional creators.

The ones who invest years of their lives for musical studies. The ones who invest money on producing and distributing their works.

The ones who NEED to be members of national collecting societies! The ones who cannot afford to share their creations without securing them first!

Cause creators need to be paid for their work to live. Cause creators cannot allow others to alter or steal their creations…. What concrete problems do you as a creator face in your everyday work under the current copyright regime?

Rest assured that we creators have our collecting societies to discuss all these matters with! There is no need for European creators to discuss their concerns with Pirates of the EU Parliament or anyone else!

To sum up. It is my national collecting society AEPI. Because AEPI has been protecting Greek creators for years with loyalty, professionalism and — above all — in an effective way.

There is absolutely no need for replacing the society that cares about me and my work. And whatever I need to discuss concerning my creations or my rights as a creator, I do it with the appropriate departments of AEPI.

No need for Pirates to interfer with my work. Simple as that…. Do not shoot at the creators and the artists!

We demand not to reduce, but to strengthen the rights of creators to authorize and be remunerated for any use of our works online.

The artists are already remunerated with the crumbs falling from the tables of those who live rich taking advantage economically the creations of the artists.

An artist exists for as long as he owns exclusively the rights of his creations. Could you be more specific which of the proposed measures you take issue with?

Chimären, wenn Sie mich fragen. Schon in dieser Frage klingt an, was sich wie ein Roter Faden durch alle Ihre Fragen, aber auch durch die altbekannten Piraten-Positionen zieht: absolute Ignoranz in Bezug auf den Prozess, in dem Urheber ihre medialen Werke heute realisieren.

Es ist doch — mit Verlaub — Vulgärmarxismus, wenn Sie die wachsende Kulturwirtschaft in böse Verwerter einerseits und gute Urheber andererseits unterteilen.

Eines gibt es ohne das andere nicht. Fragen Sie doch einfach mal die Beteiligten. Sie ignorieren aber diesen Zusammenhang bewusst, um den Usern, also ihren Wählern unbeschwert ein gewaltiges Geschenk zu machen, dass Sie absolut nichts kostet: Dazu wollen Sie den Verwertern Erlöse wegnehmen Rechte etc.

Das ist nicht nur eine Milchmädchenrechnung, das ist ein mieser Deal zu Lasten von uns Urhebern. Wollen sie wirklich Land für Land die Rechte für ihre Werke verhandeln, oder hätten sie lieber einen einzigen europäischen Markt?

Da bin ich leidenschaftslos, liebe Frau Reda. Aber Sie und ich sollten zumindest zur Kenntnis nehmen, dass die Finanzierung und Refinanzierung z.

Der einzige Grund, dieses eingespielte und funktionierende System zu ändern, ist, den Urhebern nichts oder zu wenig zahlen zu wollen, Eingriffe ins Werk vorzunehmen, die der Autor nicht akzeptiert.

Das kann nicht im Interesse der Urheber sein. Jemand, der ernsthaft etwas Neues schaffen will, muss sich schon die Mühe machen, die Urheber der vorbestehenden Werke zu kontaktieren, ihr Einvernehmen mit Respekt und Vergütung zu erreichen.

Wir brauchen als Entschädigung für die tagtäglichen, millionenfachen digitalen Privatkopien eine europaweite Abgabe, die über Leermedien hinaus auch die Smartphones, Clouds etc.

Deshalb müssen Sie bei einer solchen Neu- Regelung mutig sein und auch die riesigen Internet Service Provider einbeziehen, damit wir Urheber über unsere Verwertungsgesellschaften die uns zustehenden Erlöse generieren können.

Was wir gar nicht brauchen ist eine Verkürzung von Schutzfristen — es gibt keinen Grund, die ohnehin begrenzten Rechte an geistigem Eigentum weiter einzuschränken.

Oder würde es Ihnen einleuchten, wenn Sie das von Oma geerbte Häuschen nach 50 Jahren entschädigungslos abgeben sollen?

Mir nicht. So naiv können Sie nun wirklich nicht sein. Ohne dass der Urheber etwas davon hat — wenn z. Weil sie die Seelen fröhlich macht, Weil sie unschuldige Freude weckt…….

Wir sprechen als Liedermacher ueber 30 Jahre, motiviert durch Logik und also Gefuehl , anstatt technokratischen Analysen..

Music beruehrt Menshen vielfältig Jedes Werk, in dem der Benutzer an einem gewissen Punkt in seinem Leben, Freude oder Trost findet, trägt endlose Stunden von Arbeit und Kreativität,und Schmerz und Einsamkeit, die nie belohnt werden und …Geld natuerlich , nie vergilt.

Auf dieser Grundlage wäre es sinnvoll,dass jede Diskussion über geistiges Eigentum, all dies ernst nimmt, und die Bedeutung und Wichtigkeit der geistigen Schoepfung beruecksichtigt.

Die Willkür gegen geistige Schöpfung fuehrt zur Hemmung der Erzeugung. In your report you indicate a few times that you made sure you have spoken to all parties that are affected by the report.

One would think, it makes sense to ask, because in the report you only refer to single creators. Therefore you refer to experiences and opinions of single persons that are not even representative for a small group of stakeholders.

So yes, it makes sense to actively ask in public. And obviously you already got some very profound answers in the comments of this site and on your facebook page.

But allow me to point out some questions raised through the procedure itself and your introductory statement:. Did you speak with professional creators associations beforehand?

So have you offered that help beforehand? Sometimes you refer to creators, sometimes to artists. Sometimes you refer to the music industry, sometimes to E-books, sometimes to photography, sometimes to private amateur creation.

Unfortunately you never explain why or how you come to this conclusion. A detailed analyze of the published list shows, that just a fractional amount of your time was used by collecting societies or groups associated to them you call them cmos.

So at least in your own report one can find no proof at all for your statement. So the question is: Is this statement based on facts or on personal belief some might call it ideological?

The questions you are asking in your introductory statement were lengthy and eleborately answered in some of the former comments.

But please allow me to stress out one simple thing, which is expicitely true for the music business but might at least in parts as well be true for other branches.

A very large part of the professionally created and crafted works are not used and exploited by the authors themselves.

They are written for someone else be it another artist or a company and most of the times for a specific use. At the beginning of their public lives no one can predict, what will happen to them.

No one can predict, how much those works will be used in a commercial environment, how successful they will be in terms of money or just in terms of public interest.

No one can predict if they will rise like a star and reach their audience or if they will suffer their commercial life somewhere in a dark chamber for whatever reason.

You care about content. You are asking: What is important to you? Hello Andreas, thanks for your comments. Of course! Julia is of course aware that several groups, among them the authors society PRS for music , made it easier for people to respond to the consultations after the EU neglected to provide an online form.

It is interesting that you see the report as an attack on cultural heritage, whereas cultural heritage institutions like the library association EBLIDA support it.

Clay…you guys live somewhere up there in your heads. But keep on talking. It is your job after all. If you are ever interested in reality, shut up first!

Not about what is the topic here. Did I ever mention the Pirate Party? It was about questions that came to me while reading the report of a member of the EU-parliament.

Some of those questions are answered through your reply, most of them are not. We all know that and believe me, Julia and her team are not the only ones who know this and try to find solutions.

So here are some opinions. If she wants to listen, fine. Instead you insinuate that my post is driven by the anti-pirates-reflex.

Do I see the report as an attack on cultural heritage? I just stated the fact, that one might see a responsibility for first world countries to protect cultural heritage and that this was not clearly addressed in the report.

In addition to that the influence of global players on the markets and on that cultural heritage was not discussed either.

Do we really need a copyright consultation to find out that there are stakeholders and conflicts of interests inside entities like collecting societies, some of them hosting You write Julia is caring very much about artists btw I was talking about authors , but she also cares about the users.

I found an interesting article on that. I think we could at least agree in saying, they are not supporters of the current copyright system in the EU.

The big question — and neither you nor Julia provide an answer to that: Why? Why do those interests need to be balanced?

So she is asking for participation on her website: What is important to you? Which global players are you specifically concerned with? Without the possibility to enforce rights, they are not worth the paper they are written on.

But ok. You ask me to specify my concerns on the monopoly in the field of search engines? You ask me to specify my concerns about the monopoly in the field of E-Commerce?

You ask me to draw a comparison between Universal Music and YouTube? I thought Julia is an the expert on this field. And according to her website she believes in technology as the moving force of society.

I deeply respect politicians who have the courage to clearly state their beliefs in public unless they are inhuman, anticonstitutional etc.

This applies to Julia as well. But if she states her beliefs as clearly as she does she must be aware that all of her actions are seen in the bright light of her beliefs.

She believes in progress through technology. Besides the fact that you said Julia would see those actions as a reasonable way of making participation easier see our discussion above about the handling of the consultation through PRS and Amelia Andersdottir — it would be great if you would provide any links or evidence for that statement.

Have you ever create an artistic work? Hello Alberto, thanks for your comments. It is a work you know.. It is a work for me to live with dignity producing culture..

Please let me live!!!! Take your hands of my human rights!!! Hello Lina, thanks for your comment. If her proposals are indeed in favor for us creators, why do you think they have caused such a huge reaction by creators against these proposals?

Do all creators have a misinformation problem? Creators are already disadvantaged in many ways with very few actually getting rich in the current system , it is understandable that they fight to defend their position when they are told of a supposed threat.

Mire Vd. Yo te doy dos canciones y tu me das un kilo de filete de ternera. Tu me das una novela y yo te llevo gratis en mi taxi un par de meses….

Pero, mira por donde, lo quieren gratis. Si Vd. Y Vds. Seria una propuesta justa. No cree? Reynaldo Leon. Como autora teatral considero alucinante y abusiva tu propuesta, posiblemente basada en un desconocimiento de nuestra realidad.

En muchos casos, se trata de simples pateras que aspiran tenazmente a llegar a las costas de una supervivencia digna. I have read through a lot of comments here, and there are a lot of misconceptions about copyright, human rights, consumers and what the Pirate Party stands for amongst other things.

Human Rights. Content creators and specially the Media industry lobby often spread the notion that getting paid is a human right.

It is not. Creators do however have the right to ASK to get paid for their work. The Media industry works for the Media industry, and that is all well and good.

With the emergence of a new type of distribution, as seen especially in the digital market, many distributors of content is simply not needed.

Wrong, at least in the sense that they lose sales. Most independently verified empirical evidence points to the contrary.

Piracy is at an all-time high, and so is the amount of money the media industry earns. What the media industry DO lose money on, is the fight against progress and the natural evolution of the free market in light of new technologies and business models when they pay hard earned money towards fighting piracy.

Also Wrong. The media industries are fighting for their own rights. In many if not most contracts that creators like authors and musicians agree to and sign, they effectively sell the rights to their own creations to the companies.

This is not how it should be. The creator of a work should always own their own work, at least for a long enough time to be able to make an impact on the market, and also to be able to negotiate with other distributors and marketing companies.

Creators are of course free to sign any contracts they so desire, but if the media industry all work by the same old principles, it will not be possible to change the conditions for creators for the better.

Wrong again. Stealing a car is stealing. Stealing a book is stealing. Buying wood and tools to make a chair that looks like IKEAs chair for personal use is not and will never be stealing.

Buying a USB stick, pay for internet connections, buying computers and then copying a movie from a friend is not and will never be stealing.

The Media Lobby will make you believe that copying ideas, content and digital media is stealing, but this is simply not true.

The original work is still in the hands of the owner. If you are a creator, then I urge you to get independent information about these issues and what the Pirate Party movement stands for, both in your own country and internationally.

Human rights. Freedom of speech. Freedom of information, knowledge and culture. Freedom to take part in the development of society as a whole.

Freedom of sexual expression. Religious freedom. The right to be anonymous. The abolishment of mass surveillance. The promotion of education, and much, much more.

If yes, what kind of? Or do you just hijack this site for announcing Pirate Party promotion phrases? This estimate may be conservative if the actual losses to piracy are greater than those suggested by our triple difference estimate or if returns in the US box office are also reduced by piracy.

Our findings are potentially important to policymakers choosing policies to combat piracy. These laws are highly controversial, and similar laws have been considered in the US and England.

As a first step, policy makers need to know whether piracy is depressing sales, and our results suggest that piracy depresses international box office.

I know the UN report. Which is a shame. Not a contract, nor a law. Nice quotes, by the way. I also support the freedom on the Internet, but your freedom should not come at the cost of my own freedom, including my rights based on intellectual property.

Access to cultural and technical resources should be regulated in such way that it does not usurp the copyright in any way.

Regarding the eventual free sharing of music-works, a decision about it can be made solely by the author. I am convinced that piracy is not a solution to this problem, but a compromise that will permanently define fair relationship between authors and users of their works in this new digital world.

Finally, I feel the need to emphasize that the authors and copyright societies are continually making new innovations that are transforming the world and contributing to the overall development.

I cannot answer any question posed to Julia Reda or her team, nor her branch of the Pirate Party, nor can I speak on their behalf in regards to their official position on any question.

As you well know, political groups in different countries has their own platforms. Laws and political structures vary between borders and by necessity different groups need to focus on different political topics.

It would surprise me greatly however if our view would differ in any major way on most topics relating to the common principles the Pirate movement is based on.

Would you mind to elaborate what businesses you have in mind when you are using that expression? You say: […] the fight against progress and the natural evolution of the free market in light of new technologies and business models when they pay hard earned money towards fighting piracy.

That takes no effort at all, just one or two mouse clicks — to which Pirates perhaps already refer as craftsmanship. If your analogy was a proper one, copying a piece music of music would include, for example, to gather a bunch of able musicians, put them into a recording studio and have them rerecord the piece.

Or the other way round: We needed a device to copy furniture in a fraction of a second. The big mistake in your story is that you mix up intellectual property with tangible goods.

As before you — deliberately? Who do you consider to be the owner of what work? Do you acknowledge the right, for example, of a film company or its distributors to charge money from cinemas for playing their movies?

And stealing a DVD from the shop is also not stealing, because the original work is still in the hands of the owner? One last word: Nobody denies the right of copying for private use.

Most pirated works, however, are distributed through a worldwide net of commercial download services. These folks mostly neither pay the rightholders, artists, creators nor authors.

In short: They are thieves. Also called pirates if seabound. You are a spokesman for the Swedish Pirate Party and should have all the means to persuade us of your good intentions towards authors.

And by the way, here would be the ideal place. As for your first point, sure. Its not a great leap of faith after all.

More people than ever consume their products, and more sales than ever are being made. All over the world, companies are expanding and more consumers are made avaliable through new infrastructure.

That is regulated by the market that in turn, very simplified, is governed by supply and demand. Some markets earns more than ever, and some decline, but overall the business is booming, with or without Pirates.

No, not entirely. The market has a sort of natural evolution yes. The companies that do not adapt in time to changes on the market lose money and risk getting outperformed and outcompeted by rivals, and others that do adapt their business models to the current affair of the market survives and outlive the more static business models.

You thinking my narrative is ridiculous is your prerogative to be sure, I have nothing against that.

Everyone is free to have their opinion and to express it. I take no offense. What constitutes work and its worth does not always equal how long it takes to make, nor how expensive it is to make, no.

Worth is determined by what the customer is prepared to pay. And work is defined by the person who does it. The artist has put work into it. If someone is prepared to buy it, then that work it worth what he can get no matter what you think of it.

Pretty basic. Running a buisniss business is about risk managment, evaluation of the market and adapting to new trends and so on, but lobbying for preferential treatment that some copyrightholders do might lead to outcomes that is actually harmfull for the industry as a whole.

This in turn will naturally affect creators and unrelated buisnisses businesses negatively as well. Many such occurances has happened over the years and continue to this day.

Nor can you share it with a friend or distribute it for free in many countries despite the labors of the musicians and the personal cost for the studio and equipment.

Independent and budding artists might not have the economic backing to fight for their own rights, and this is a big problem.

This actually already exists. Now I think you might be misreading me on purpose as well as making the same mistake of mixing things up as you claim that I do.

Stealing a DVD, for example, is stealing. Its actually not that hard to see the difference. I am the owner of an old Ford Escort.

Ford does not own the ford after i bought it. I still would have the same old useless car. And also, the poor bugger that copied it would be in a world of trouble with the copy just as I am with the original.

Its not in very good shape after all. Ford would not own the copy, and nor would I. Ford does own the brand on the other hand, but that is a different matter alltogether.

I also own a ton of texts, paintings, articles I wrote amongst other things, and if someone copied my ideas, I would not scream theft.

Neither if they copied my painting or articles. If they broke in to my home trespassing and stole my painting burglary I would certainly call the police, and if they where to make money off of said copies, to sell them as their own work, that too is another story entirely.

And I think you know that aswell. If someone tried to make money out if said movie, then that is, as in previouse examples, not ok. To be quite honest, if it where to violate my personal integrity, id actually not scream theft either.

So you see, many of the special laws lobbied for, and against piracy, is simply not needed and risk to actually intefere with the free market and peoples right to take part of culture and knowlage, aswell as making it unessesarily complicated for creators to actually release work on their own if they so chose.

I think Julia Redas work goes a long way to both strengthen the rights of the creators, and simplify the copyright laws and regulations for the rightholders across the EU.

These folks mostly neither pay the right holders, artists, creators nor authors. Here we agree, for the most part. Or so I would believe.

As an example, if someone printed a book I wrote, and sold it as their own to make profits out of my work, it would clearly not be acceptable, and also against the law.

Certainly there are also other laws against this. I cannot for example start making Ikea furniture, and sell them as such. To this I disagree.

Also, there are quite a few out there who would like nothing more than to deny copying for private use.

When they could not, they instead enforce a Private Copying Levy. Yes, I do believe knowledge is a good thing, for all, and to get independent information that you yourself gather is one of the best ways to learn.

Thank you, I can surely try. You cannot convince everyone of everything. All you can ever hope for is to give of what you know, your points of view, and hope that something good comes of it.

Please note, as I mentioned in another post, I cannot speak for Julia Reda or her team in any way or form, this is simply my answer to you, Mr.

Schwirzke, with kind greetings from Sweden. I repeat my question: Are you a creator? Apart from writing on Julia Redas website If you look at the topic you will find the purpose easily.

Maybe you as a spokesman of the Swedish Pirate Party are disappointed by the negative feedback of creators so far and this is the reason for hijacking this topic and spreading Pirate Party phrases on and on.

Nevertheless it is absurd. Not mentioning that a lot of comments on this site are waiting for release. And so it is nicer not to release all comments.

Dear Mrs Reda, thank you very much for giving me the opportunity to comment on your paper. I would have the following queries with regards to your ideas: Point 1: In your opinion, is there any legal basis for a claim for reasonable compensation of authors?

As far as I understood Mr. Isaksson, there is no such legal basis. You do not refer to the fact, that big companies creat platforms to earn money by using our music without paying us.

I understand that Mr. Isaksson has a different opinion on this and I would be interested to know if you share his point of view.

She is not doubting that one bit. Generally speaking, Julia is of course not a supporter of any commercial and intentional infringement of copyright.

It is obvious, however, that that description can not be applied to just any platform that enables peer-to-peer exchange ie.

First it is absurd to name pots offices and e mail provider as a source of p2p exchange. The source of those exchange are platforms like The Pirate Bay.

This is were your Party is coming from. I guess you know that you guys are just the political arm. These platforms — I can name a couple of others — are commercial enterprises.

They have huge traffic and selling ads on their website. In opposite to legal platforms the creators are getting nothing out of that revenue.

And here it is getting more strange. You say more or less, the creative industry is unfair to creators, there is a need to make their position stronger but commercial platforms for p2p exchange are protected.

What about the fairness of the commercial platforms with regard to creators? Any idea? If not, the intention is very clear: You stand for the protection of those business models like Pirate Bay.

You are mistaken on two issues: 1. Enforcement is off-topic in her report. Hello Christopher, it unfortunately appears you have been misinformed about the history of the Pirate Party and The Pirate Bay.

Anyway, pls. So pls. I am fully aware that enforcement was not the focus of her report. Nevertheless I am sure at least an even short statement would have been a good sign.

She missed that. Julia Reda is asking creators. That is good. Creators are answering but their answers were not released or just with a huge delay.

That is bad. Then a spokesman of the Swedish Pirate Party joins the debate, not clear if he is a creator or not. That is even more bad.

On top of that the poorly handled word press system on the official web page enables identity sharing or hijacking of identities incl.

Both are violations of existing law. It took nearly a day to fix that. Although switching off the comment function is easy to do. With all respect but this is a very bizarr story and put everybody of her team incl.

Vasilis Kelaidis Composer.. I have noticed my point about human rights and getting paid can be greatly misunderstood. I apologize for this and have made a clarification of sorts on my personal blog as to not take up to much space here in Julia Redas thread, as its sligthly off topic to what is discussed here.

Thank for engaging into this discusssion. I would like to mention one point in here that possibly transcends most of the other criticism found on this page.

There is no doubt about the fact that the current conditions we have for intenet governance and regulation do create an enormous friction and conflicts with the traditional logic of copyright.

I think noone here will deny that. Now, as Ivica Badurina pointed out above, this discussion is not only about payment.

It is also about rights and freedoms, and how we try to balance them. The individual freedom of one person must stop where it starts to intrude and collide with the freedom of another person.

The whole conncept of LAW itself is to manage these collisions and balance them out. I cannot fimd any attempt in Julias norChristophers nor Peters ideology where there is a balancing in progress for the authors, and especialy not for the rights holders.

You have done everything to express your sympathy for authors, but yet all your attempts to redefine copyright is an attempt to shape it, so it does not collide wiith your ideology.

This is no attrmpt to balance it, this an attempt tomessentially dissolve the notion of copyright and authors rights. If there was a balancing in place here, you would have also had to ask yourself on how to shape the internet, so it can better function to respect the posititon of copyriht holders.

Ultimately, internet regilation and copyright modernization have to fall together to solve this regulatory clusterfuck we are in now.

Additonally you are essentially trying to paint a picture, where the creative industry representatives are plain evil, while the authors are good.

Have you noticed that none of the professional authors here echoed, adopted or shared that sentiment at all?

To the contrary: your narrative has nothing to do with their daily lives in which authors, artists and creative industry are working together, not against each other.

Did you not realise that yet? Contrary to public belief, creatuve industrys and the majority of professional authors and artists are working together in a symbiosis, and you are trying to simply fit that reality into what your own filter bubble has been telling you the opposite for the last ten years or so.

But this is not the reality. The past and current developements are increasingly starting to contradict your ideology. So, it boils down to the question:what are you going to do now?

So,will you habe the guts to readjust your idelogy, or will you simply continue to run over regulatory red lights, fundamental rights of authors and creative imdustry reps alive they are humans too!

Because a much needed reform of copyright is going to fail, if you dont change your direction….

Julia is not a libertarian who rejects Internet regulation as evidenced, for example, by her strong support for net neutrality. Can we bring this debate to a factual level?

Which specific recommendations from her report do you most take issue with? Hallo Julia, ich bin Thomas Elbel, Professor für öffentliches Recht und Romanschriftsteller mit 3 Veröffentlichungen bei klassischen Verlagen und einem selbstpublizierten Buch.

Alternative F�R Kinox.To Alternative F�R Kinox.To I am coming back to your web site for more soon. Or so I would believe. This Suspiria Stream site is something that is required on the internet, someone with a bit of originality! Magnificent web site. Zu finden sind sie jedenfalls nirgends.

We're a nonprofit organization and rely on supporters like you to help us keep Tor robust and secure for millions of people worldwide.

To advance human rights and freedoms by creating and deploying free and open source anonymity and privacy technologies, supporting their unrestricted availability and use, and furthering their scientific and popular understanding.

Sign up. Trademark, copyright notices, and rules for use by third parties can be found in our FAQ. Defend yourself.

Protect yourself against tracking, surveillance, and censorship. Download for Windows Signature. Download for OS X Signature. Download for Linux Signature.

Download for Android. Android Tor Browser 10 is under active development. Watch for its release in the coming weeks.

Read the latest release announcements. Select "Tor is censored in my country. Jeremiah Johnson Miami Monkey Miami Guns Body Count - Flucht nach Miami Million Dollar Listing Miami Mia Khalifa — Her first porno she made Miami Supercops Dark Secrets Inside Bohemian Grove The Bohemian Girl Mia zoi tin ehoume Ein Weihnachtsmann für Mia Miami Rhapsody Gui mian ren zhe Yu mian hu A mian B mian Mia aioniotita kai mia mera Miami Connection Siemiany Muhammad Ali: Made in Miami La peggior settimana della mia vita Britney Spears: Live from Miami A Miami Tail Miami Golem Ride Along 2: Next Level Miami Miao Miao Extralarge: Miami Killer Omamamia Mia Madre Mia madre The Simian Line Mia and Me — Abenteuer in Centopia Die Bibel: Jeremia Mia und der Minotaurus Jeremiah Tower: The Last Magnificent

Alternative F�R Kinox.To „Kinox to“ ein Versprechen für kostenloses Serien-Streaming , aber illegal!

Erektionsprobleme: Das sind die besten Tipps. Was ist das Darknet? Was ist ein VPN-Protokoll? Da diese nicht alle von den Anbieter gesperrt werden, umgehen viele Nutzer damit diese. Trotz der Vodafone Netzsperre von kinox. Neben kostenpflichtigem Streaming bietet der Dienst auch eigene Dak Weilheim Filme und Serien an. Sandra Escacena Boys und die Cluzet. DNS Server ändern Anleitung. Unser TIPP:. Alternative F�R Kinox.To

Alternative F�R Kinox.To Stand up for privacy and freedom online. Video

25 Jahre danach: Christiane F. und die Kinder vom Bahnhof Zoo (mit Stella, Detlef, Kessi etc.) 1/2 Hier ein umfangreicher Bericht zu kostenlosen und kostenpflichtigen Alternativen von Kinox. Alternativen zu ovguide. Ist das Hochzeitskleid gefunden, beginnt die Suche nach dem passenden und perfekten Kleinster Kolibri erst. November at Habe auch sehr lang nach einer Alternative zu kino. Legale Streaming Seiten sind die bessere Alternative. FAQ zu Alternativen von kinox. PARTY — kinox. Oder nicht? LC — kinox. Auserdem gibt es dort auch genügend Angebissen Filme für Studenten. Liylah: Nach eigenen Angaben von kinox. Das Streamen über die verbotenen Portale ist eben einfach viel zu verführerisch …. Alternativen zu neu-stream. Wir haben einige der interessantesten Fragen aufgegriffen und wollen dir hier detaillierte und hilfreiche Antworten diesbezüglich geben.

Alternative F�R Kinox.To
Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail

3 Kommentare zu „Alternative F�R Kinox.To

  • 08.04.2020 um 07:58
    Permalink

    Ich biete Ihnen an, die Webseite zu besuchen, auf der viele Informationen zum Sie interessierenden Thema gibt.

    Antworten
  • 16.04.2020 um 17:36
    Permalink

    Sie sind nicht recht. Ich biete es an, zu besprechen. Schreiben Sie mir in PM, wir werden umgehen.

    Antworten

Schreibe einen Kommentar

Deine E-Mail-Adresse wird nicht veröffentlicht. Erforderliche Felder sind mit * markiert.