Where can you legally watch One Piece in German?

Burning Series / kinoх.to / etc… Has not been legal since the beginning of 2018. You have to reckon with 200 euro penalty per executed episode.

Amazon does not even have the complete series, and even if it costs over 1500 euro… (50 euro per volume, one volume has 26 episodes).

I have no problem with spending money on it, just certainly not 1500 euro.

I know that the series unfortunately does not exist on Netflix… Maybe Watchever or similar?

"Burning Series / kinoх.to / etc… Is no longer legal since the beginning of 2018. You have to pay 200 euro penalty per episode watched."

So, where did you get that wisdom from?

Legal is ONLY ONE squadron available everywhere.

https://www.werstreamt.es/...one-piece/

Burning Series / kinoх.to / etc… Is since early 2018
no longer legal.

And they were NEVER legal!

At the beginning of 2018, the Federal Supreme Court ruled that now even volatile copies of copyrighted material (a.k.a in main memory such as streaming) now count as pirated copies.

There's no legal stream where you can see the complete series with dub.

They were a gray area for a long time, because the series had not been saved, but had only been stored volatile in the main memory. In early 2018, the volatile store was banned.

No, it was not a gray area! Illegal streaming sites have always been illegal!

That's too bad.

Nevertheless, that's not true with the 200 euro per order

getting caught is so low the lottery win rather happens

It has never been really legal.

I also know of no case that someone had to pay this fine.

But you are right. If in doubt, keep your hands off it.

Yes, but actually no. The operation of such sites has always been prohibited. BS / kinoх.to, however, was off the hook because they did not host anything themselves, but only forwarded it (for example to Steamcloud). These were mostly located in countries where such things are allowed. Until the beginning of 2018, however, it was completely legal to look at these streams, because you never had the actual movie file at your disposal. That's why downloads have always been banned, but streaming only since that verdict.

But IF you get caught, they will not send a reminder right away. The first watch the traffic, if you do not want to see 100 more episodes, and then come immediately a bunch of warnings.

NO. Even if they do not host themselves, it is still not legal. What do you think why all have no imprint? According to your logic, yes, the whole operator would be off the hook, since they offer nothing but only link themselves.

But already ~ 2006 it was judged that hyperlinks can be punished.

Streaming illegal streaming sites has always been illegal. The verdict only referred to legal services such as Netflix etc. Pp.

Because just there it was not clear if the streamer EXTRA once again needs a license from the license holder.

Who are they"? How do they "watch"? And where did you get that from now?

As for your first point, you may be right. Then these websites were now also abroad. The user does not care, because it is only forwarded.

Do you know RA Solmecke? Lawyer for media law, specialty warnings for streaming and torrenting. He leads a youtube channel on which he deals with exactly that. Thus, he makes good content and subtle advertising for his law firm.

In this video, the original ECJ ruling is handled, the streaming of series, etc. At that time four years ago in the first legalized.

The responsible offices. If no one sporadically watched the traffic, no one would ever be warned for streaming. That's why it happens so rarely.

If they find someone who streams Illegal, it would be stupid to leave it on that one stream, as that person will probably stream more often.

I know this very well. But I was also 10 years active in the (warez) scene as a moderator. And I'm well aware of the legal situation, and also of the fact that the judiciary wanted to buss us, even though we only linked and did not offer anything ourselves.

In that sense… NIX gray area. Was it NEVER!

And again to come back to Mr. Solmecke. He only reports of his own opinion. He wants to think and mean… It does not matter if a court decrees something completely different.

I think we're talking about different things. I'm talking about the legal situation of the user. We do not have to talk about whether it's forbidden to operate such sites. Of course, yes. I do not think it's illegal to use redirect sites, I believe. Sounds logical.

My only concern is that until this verdict (which was already made at the end of April 2017) it was a gray area, whether one may click on illegally provided links, and consume the stream there without making a copy.
Since this verdict, the stream that is being cached in memory is also counted as a copy, and thus it is illegal.

No! The verdict was legal streaming… Now for the second time.

Streaming illegal sources was NEVER legal!

And there was a judgment much earlier my young Padawan!

In June 2014, the ECJ ruled that streaming was exempted from the European Copyright Directive, because the data it uploaded to the computer was "temporary, fleeting or incidental and integral and integral to a technical process". The mere viewing of copyrighted works in the web browser or via a streaming client therefore does not initially constitute a breach of law. However, the ECJ also ruled that there could be a legal violation if the stream is fed from an obviously unlawful source. The mere viewing is therefore not a violation of law, if the adjuster of the stream does not violate copyright itself or this is at least not recognizable to the viewer.

https://de.wikipedia.org/...iche_Frage

And now please stop discussing.

If the ECJ has so decided, that will probably be true.

Then there's the question of how to define "obviously Illegal".

Unfortunately, one can no longer argue for facts, since this is in the eye of the beholder.

I have prepared a link to the 2015er version of bs, to:

https://web.archive.org/web/20150404212355/http://bs.to/

In my eyes, this is by no means obviously illegal. Chic web design, forums, account system, Shoutbox, A contact page, a copyright policy, the team is listed in public… That there's missing an imprint is my opinion for a layman not obvious.

How different courts have answered this question, we know.

Then there's the question of how to define "obviously Illegal".

You are such a Solmecke fan. He once defined that in one of his videos.

So, and now I'm out. It tires me when people do not want to understand.

Also such a nonsense

they can't do that because that's against the privacy law

this only violates the privacy sphere

Therefore, in addition to the prefer to make the pages of the net or the afflicted person behind such pages

There are no offices for this. The (public prosecutor's offices) act on call and then determine the IP. That's it…

Then just reboot PC after the stream… Without fun that's nothing to worry about.