Kinox.to as the best-known platform for free series and films streaming is, along with Movie4k.to and other sites, often in the news, even though it is 2017 and you can buy current movies after a short time legally on Netflix, Amazon Prime Video and Co for free can look. There is currently another legally effective decision with regard to the free streaming of films and series on the Internet: the Court of Justice of the European Union announced in Case C-527/15 on April 26, 2017 that, among other things, the offer and use of media players for illegal offers of films and series are unlawful. The other versions in a tripartite judgment But the mere use of Kiniox.to and Co. does not go unpunished either.
Chapter in this post:
Judgment 2017: Kinox.to and Co are illegal offers for films and series
In the specific case, it was about a playback device that is coupled to the television and that enables free access to films and series on the Internet via the installed software. However, one also reads this in the above linked document of the Court of Justice:The Court has also ruled that acts of temporary reproduction on that multimedia media player of a copyrighted work by streaming it from a third party website offering that work without the permission of the copyright holder are not excluded from the reproduction right."
If you apply this sentence not only to the device offered, but to all computers, tablets, smartphones, etc., then any streaming via sites such as Kinox or Movie4K is unlawful and illegal. Films, series and documentaries should, if it is already an online stream, be realized through legal providers.
Streaming on the Internet: Exemption for private copies only
In the third to last paragraph of the linked paper, criteria are listed that describe exceptions to illegal streaming. It says exactly: "[It] an act of reproduction is only excluded from the reproduction right if it meets the following five requirements: (1) the act is temporary; (2) it is fleeting or accompanying; (3) it represents an integral and essential part of a technical process; (4) The sole purpose of this procedure is to enable a transmission in a network between third parties through an intermediary or a lawful use of a protected work or a protected object, and (5) this act has no independent economic significance.“- In short: private copying is legal.
Do you have to expect an advertisement as a user?
This article is not legal advice, just an overview of the research results on the topic in question. However, I can recommend you an article that was written by a lawyer on the said judgment of the ECJ. It describes that users usually do not have to fear an advertisement, since providers such as Kinox.to or previously Kino.to hardly save user data such as the IP, etc. But whoever has registered as a premium user or otherwise registered as a user can be determined by reading the servers of Kinox and Co.
"In contrast to the file-sharing process, the requirements themselves should remain manageable, since no streams are distributed but merely consumed. The warning costs have been capped for some time at around 150 euros in the private sector, the compensation for damages per film consumed should be around 5-10 euros.", is it [called in the said article.
Cheap alternatives like Netflix and Amazon Prime Video
Good quality, low costs, legal streaming and a free trial month with all content such as films, series and documentaries: if you want to save yourself a warning and penalties, you should consider legal streaming. You can find a little guide on the topic in my article on Amazon Prime Video.
Related Articles
New iPads: Apple announces event for May 7, 2024- Sir Apfelot newsreel week 16, 2024
- More AI, more sales: The M4 chip is intended to increase Mac sales
- Sir Apfelot newsreel week 15, 2024
- Find my Android device: Google has launched its own “Find My?”
- Sir Apfelot newsreel week 14, 2024
- DALL-E and Sora: OpenAI shows new AI developments
- Fiber optic internet: Up to 4,5 million times faster thanks to E-band
After graduating from high school, Johannes completed an apprenticeship as a business assistant specializing in foreign languages. But then he decided to research and write, which resulted in his independence. For several years he has been working for Sir Apfelot, among others. His articles include product introductions, news, manuals, video games, consoles, and more. He follows Apple keynotes live via stream.
That's so true. We've been using Netflix for a while. If you add that to B. If you share it with other family members, it can in the best case only cost € 3 a month for the UHD 4K version. It should really be worth it to everyone. Especially since the quality is much better there ...
Hello Thomas,
I can fully agree with you. And those who only want to use streams for a series or a manageable number of films or for a film evening will pay nothing for a whole month due to the trial subscriptions offered. I also find the quality to be an important argument; illegal streams tend to be pixelated (I've heard ...) while Netflix, Amazon and Co. offer real HD or even UHD. If legal streaming is even more popular in society, then Kinox and Co. will become obsolete anyway. I think we are already on the right path.
But the judgment and the linked article from the RA have nothing to do with Kinox.to and Co.
Hi Jens,
Yes, the themes are directly linked. Among other things, the judgment paper refers to a 2014 judgment dealing with cases “in which a website provides clickable links to protected works that are published on another site without access restrictions giving direct access to users of the former site commanded for these works.” In addition, it was said in the article here that the judgment on the case mainly dealt with (the multimedia player) can be converted to Kinox.to and Co - after all, they are almost the same offers. And in the RA article in the update of April 26.04.2017, XNUMX, kinox.to and the connection with the judgment of the ECJ are clearly dealt with.
How do I recognize a protected work? Today, at a time when entire films and entire music albums are available on YouTube. The whole thing is a if and can and would farce.
If anyone were to have a serious interest in banning the possibility of streaming films and series, they would simply shut down the servers and block the domains worldwide. But there is no interest at all. The problem is the lack of awareness of wrongdoing.
Why did you pick a small Dutch hardware manufacturer out now? Why not Apple, which allows me to easily access kinox.to and Co. with Safari. The computer is also connected to the television, the computer also has a monitor, why is it against this multimedia player?
I have Amazon Prime, I had Maxdome for 1 year, a friend uses Netflix. Honestly none of these offers are worth the money. And if you can't find what you're looking for there, your 10-year-old daughter will show you how to find what you're looking for in seconds with "Title Stream German". Then you're flat.
Here some facts and figures are mixed up or not properly related to the matter. I don't want to start a big discussion, so here are my thoughts on it in brief:
* If you know the word copyright, you can recognize a protected work such as a film or album, actually by the very existence of the works - but also in the credits on various copyright notices or on the back of the album. If the album is available in digital version, the provider should provide answers.
* The fact that YouTube does not take full action against the infringement of copyrights is probably due to their algorithms and the mass of cases. However, there are already legal offers of music and films on YouTube. The channel descriptions provide information here.
* "Simply" shutting down servers and blocking domains is not that easy - as a studio, government or other institution, you can quickly hear the accusation of censorship plans etc. In addition, images of the blocked pages are quickly online again; Kinox.to is just a copy of Kinox.to. So it's a cat and mouse game. And that on an international level, which complicates things.
* Why was the Dutch “manufacturer” “picked out”? Probably because he was charged and because his product's main purpose was to access illegal streams. In addition, the case is in the media, a high-profile example, but certainly not the only case.
* I can only take it as a joke that a provider for computers, operating systems and browsers is equated with it. I am not suing Miele because theoretically I can put my hamster in their washing machine. Safari is just the door to the Internet; Apple neither has to foresee nor pretend with what intentions one goes through.
* You can certainly argue about the offer of streaming services - or you take on the role of the responsible user that you are and write your wishes to the provider. Sure, it doesn't have to be crowned with success; but alternatively you can buy the corresponding DVD.
* It is not logical that streaming services should offer films and the like just because it can also be found as an illegal stream. Because here we are again at point 1: Copyrights and distribution rights. A broad field, but certainly not rocket science.