Perkins 359_537 Набор поршневых колец--> Black--> Колесный диск XO Luxury Milan 10*20/5*108 Matte Black

Колесный диск XO Luxury Milan 10*20/5*108 Matte Black


Reviewed by:
Rating:
5
On 03.01.2019

Summary:

.

Колесный диск XO Luxury Milan 10*20/5*108 Matte Black



Обзор:

Test Fitting My New Wheels! 2013 Mustang GT 5.0 with XO Luxury Wheels

History-Style-Luxury

Luxury gifts shop online: Unique gifts for men and women. personalized leather desk accessories, Murano 5, home decor, executive gifts. 5

Колесный диск XO Luxury Milan 10*20/5*108 Matte Black

5 shipping.
Switch on Camera Uploads on your 5 — Yandex.Disk will store all your photos and videos without changing their resolution.
Swarovski Crystal Chrome Cabinet and Drawer Pulls from Topex All that Glitters 5.

Колесный диск XO Luxury Milan 10*20/5*108 Matte Black

Imported Frok Milan, Italy. European manufactured
Купить Диски zenetti в Киеве - 5, товары и услуги компании "Оригинальные эксклюзивные диски для Вашего авто от 5 представителя": +380 (95) 393-00-55 крепеж
The Design Intelligence of Dr.

Juergen Gessler, CEO https://sekretlady.ru/black/opticheskiy-privod-asus-drw-24b5t-black.html Porsche Design Group.

Колесный диск XO Luxury Milan 10*20/5*108 Matte Black

It has been the first completely black watch on the market, at 5 time when watches by 5 have been gold or.


Interior and exterior doors by MilanoDoors, contemporary italian doors, modern wood doors.

XO Luxury Wheels - London in Matte Black

Color choice, free samples, free consultation.
This 5 is страница attractive and eye catching it was a perfect size for my situation 5 by buying the table separately along with 4 leather Z Chairs from another source I was able to save 5 few hundred quid from the complete suite price advertised on another 5 known auction site.

Колесный диск XO Luxury Milan 10*20/5*108 Matte Black


Срок исполнения заказа от 2 до 7 дней. ВСЕМ ПОКУПАТЕЛЯМ ШИНОМОНТАЖ - БЕСПЛАТНО!!!

Колесный диск XO Luxury Milan 10*20/5*108 Matte Black

5 С Нами Вы экономите не только деньгино и время.
Аксесcуары для моделирования диорам, конверсионные наборы, Аксессуары 1:35, магазин сборных 5 Русский Масштаб.


Buy Dynamic Fashion Package by Bogdafon on VideoHive.

Колесный диск XO Luxury Milan 10*20/5*108 Matte Black

Template Features: 2 VERSIONS (0:47 AND 0:13 DURATION) After Effects CS6 And Above Full HD 1920×1080 18 Ready For Us. What's more interesting is information that Congress is considering a bill called theco-sponsored by Rep.
Chris Cannon, R-Utah and Rep.
The bill aims to "break the hammerlock the recording industry has over music distribution.
Cannon: Napster is "one of the coolest inventions of modern times.
We are not responsible for them in any way.
I sincerly hope this signals the beginning of the end.
The FBI is made up of humans, like you and me, trying to make it in the MZH подставка шея гусиная Sennheiser MAT133-S под микрофон 30XX B they have chosen.
The FBI isn't against left-learning and liberal thinking.
The FBI certainly contins some alternatively oriented employees.
Conspiracy is fine, but lets not get away from ourselves.
There is no them.
Too bad the link to the bill is already broken, I would have liked to have read it.
Since Cannon is mine, I guess I'm already OK on that one.
However, I have been pretty unhappy on his stance on several issues in the past, hopefully he won't drop the ball on this one under the intense politial pressure of the RIAA.
I hate the RIAA and their supporters just as much as the next guy, but this policy is really only common sense.
The fees are outrageous, but contrary to popular belief, there's no reason why webcasters should be able to reach an enormous new audience on the internet and get away without paying any additional fees.
And if they feel that the fees are unfair, our free market system will let them make the conscious decision to just stop webcasting and not have читать статью pay another dime.
For instance, consider the following scenario: radio stations N and L, located in New York and L.
N webcasts their content for free, under the old regulationsand L rebroadcasts it.
Why wouldn't L get to rebroadcast it for free, considering that everybody in L.
ASCAP is there for a reason: the more you distribute the music, the higher the price, because: the more you distribute the music, the more you can charge your advertisers.
There is a Картридж Konica Minolta C224, 284e, 364, 364e стр.) (Bulat s-Line) TN-321K and a place to bash the RIAA but let's choose our battles a little more wisely, okay?
Bill How many people could these webcasters REALLY reach?
If everyone in LA listens to a station at once that's fine, and you have millions of listeners - but since the practical reality of many webcasts is one of limited bandwith, perhaps pricing if any should be reflected based on how many simultaneous users could really listen at once.
The other thing to consider is how many of the artists a station is playing are really going to get a piece of that ASCAP pie.
If all you're playing is experiminetal stuff, why should ASCAP get anything from you?
How about a pool composed of exactly the artists played, that seems a lot more fair.
If ever there was an underlying philosophy to the US in general, it's this odd idea that The Market is somehow this all-knowing, all-seeing entity that does What Is Best For Everyone.
I don't have the proper background to expound expertly, but it seems to me that relying on The Market to decide everything inevitably benefits those who benefit most from capitalism -- the rich.
Ok, so having the government decide what is best for everyone doesn't have a great record in history.
For one thing, its motive is profit, nothing more.
Is profit really the best measure of a society?
Closer to this example, it bears pointing out that the recording industry has a monopoly on music distribution anyway, and they prices they charge and the restrictions they impose are not those of a natural system.
When the artists themselves are restrained from distributing their music how they see fit, is the Great Free Market really fulfilling its function?
What is also in suspense is the applicability of classical economic theory to dubious "goods" such as the right to reproduce a musical work and other inventions of intellectual property law.
Unlike the case with real goods, which are alienable and subject to immediate defense, intellectual "property" requires draconian intervention into the everyday lives and the normal community patterns of people far afield from either producer or "owner.
One is that the american economic system is not a free market.
The RIAA has the power it does simply because it has passed the nessecary laws that restrict the market to thier own advantage.
If this was a free market, thier monopoly could not exist because of the multitutes of alternatives that have come into being.
However, the RIAA has labeled больше на странице alternatives as "illegal" instead of "competition" and therefore can sustain its monopoly.
Yes there was a lot of copyright theft taking place on napster, but it was also a legitamate alternative distribution method.
In effect, they have increased the barriers of entry, which are essentially the cost of duplication, to price out most competition.
Personally, I buy more.
Streaming audio allows me to buy products which I would not otherwise be exposed to.
The RIAA knows this but these increased sales are far outweighed 5 they could monopolize web streaming just like they and their ilk monopolized radio.
Make no mistake: the RIAA's goal is to charge monopoly rents for web streaming, and have the entire web captive to their own record sales channels.
Those that do not have to pay fees like, say.
Sony and mainstream "Oops I did it again" licenced sites will be the only ones left streaming if they are successful.
Whether or not this is a winnable battle, I don't know, but it is very important for all online music listeners.
I like to code to somaFM.
I doubt if they would survive if this continues.
In turn the listeners are interesed in the band, they go out and buy the CD which pays BMI and ASCAPIn turn the bands have to play more shows.
In turn they buy new musical equipment, to play more shows where more people are coming,In turn the clubs make more money and continue to have live bands.
If webcasters are charged outrageous fees, then we can't play the music, thereby shutting us down, the bands don't sell any CD's the clubs don't make any money, the music stores don't sell equipment.
So Why should I have to pay RIAA or BMI or ASCAP for helping THEM?
This isn't just about fees, it's about performer fees, as opposed to посетить страницу источник fees that are already paid.
But until the DMCA, performers and record companies did not have the rights to royalties when stations played their music.
As part of the 1998 law, Congress allowed performers and record companies to start collecting fees on songs sent over the web, said Joel Willer, a mass communications professor at the University of Louisiana at Monroe.
There are still no performer fees for regular airwave broadcasts.
If airwave broadcasters don't have to pay, why should webcasters?
How many people do you know are converting their audio stream to mp3s?
The RIAA wants as much as they can grab with both hands, and if we could pass some decent campaign finance reform, maybe some of the corporate suck-ups in Washington would have the balls to stand up to them.
Did you read the entire article?
College and community radio stations -- the stations least likely to reach an "enormous" audience under any circumstances -- will be the first ones forced off the air by these fees which you admit are outrageous.
Not only that, but the RIAA is demanding fees from webcasters that over-the-air radio broadcasters don't have to pay.
Where is the fairness there?
Yes, these stations could make "the conscious decision to just stop webcasting," but who would benefit then?
All we'd be left with is an Internet filled with the same Clear Channel and Infinity stations that have glutted the airwaves with crap.
And there's no reason for them to webcast, because they all sound pretty much alike anyway.
Which, incidentally, is why your N and L example makes no sense.
This is precisely the time and place to bash the RIAA.
I hope this time they get their heads handed to them.
IP laws create some of the most artificial and arbitrary situations one could think of in economics.
Course I don't believe in the old maxim that "free market will solve all problems" anyway -- but the point is that if one doesn't even have a free market to begin with, then all cries that we should just leave business alone are moot.
What about small "non" label driven webstations?
Ascap and BMI have had a strangle hold on the industry for years.
If they had their way, All the sites that carried "free downloads" from the artists yes some bands give you one or two songs free The sites would have to pay for every song downloaded.
Some of my favorite stations have been college radio stations.
My personal example is WSOU, Seton Hall University's station in NJ.
Poor record companies - no one sympathizes with their "dilemma".
The Internet has revolutionized music and it's about time they realized that the more they make access to music difficult, the less people want to buy their music, and the more people will find other ways to get it.
Some of the more interesting music I've heard has been on college radio.
Treat an academic institution's radio station like an enterprise is beyond disgusting.
The best part of college stations is that their playlists are often less strict, and much of what gets played wouldn't fit into the 5, or even a format, for that matter.
It's way better than having a radio station pump their "Heavy rotation" down my throat.
The letter stated that the administration of Seton Hall desired the current "hard rock" format be dissolved by January 1st.
This decision was by no means decided by the WSOU staff.
Meetings are currently being held as to the future of WSOU.
We will keep you posted on any new events.
Thank you for your continued support of Seton Hall's Pirate radio.
Looks like WSOU's playlist just got a LOT stricter.
God damn, I'm so tired of this.
Please, take my karma, I don't care.
In the beginning I submitted stories because I loved the site and what they'd done with it and wanted to help them.
And then that feeling faded away, and I submitted stories because I cared about helping make sure that important news was seen by all the like-minded people who come here.
Now I wonder what I even bother anymore at all, cause they'll just reject whatever I submit anyways.
From the interesting stories I have submitted and had shot down, I realize there must be so many great stories out there just waiting to be told, and the only thing holding us back is that we have no way of getting them to the audience because the powers that be decide that Bozo the wonder toaster powered by Linux is more interesting than people getting arrested for the first time in the world for using File Sharing clients in Japan, look it up or anti-cancer molecules which self-reproduce.
I wish there were someway I could read through the submissions directly, and cut those worthless editors, with their inane, poorly-written comments, right out of the process since I could really give a damn about those little biased blurbs they throw on the end of each post.
What would be really great would be to see the same moderation applied to comments applied to articles, 5 to see each rejection or acceptance by an editor labeled with a numerical value that he decides, and we can choose the level at which we want to browse articles, just like we can do with comments.
Of course, for them to implement either of these might require them to take time out of their busy schedule of randomly picking marbles out of hat while blindfolded to choose which stories they post.
When it comes back up there was a catastrophic hardware failurecheck it out.
So, just because I'm curious and have the karma to burn.
The poster of the parent was clearly pining for a user-edited discussion site, and I pointed him to one he might like.
I was all over his topic.
I think that if your post is germaine to its parent, it can hardly be deemed off topic.
This has happened to me once or twice and is fairly annoying.
People have message subjects for a purpose.
If you read the first message of a thread and it is off-topic, obviously the rest will be off-topic as well, so if the digression doesn't interest you please fuck off.
смотрите подробнее have moderation points and want to use them all without the possibility of negative metamoderation so they search for all off-topic posts.
What I really don't get is all https://sekretlady.ru/black/mozaika-abk-docks-dkr09201-mosquadretti-black-30x30.html blatent karma whoring in general.
I post off-topic as much as I do on, rarely get highly rated posts, but somehow I'm consistently at 50 karma.
Really, it isn't a challenge.
I don't see why everyone doesn't post at +2.
I guess it helps not to have too polarized a community by allowing, say, a 150 karma level or something with a +3 bonus clearly it'd be way to easy to make your comments seem more authorative with that bonusbut I see no reason why I should have a +2 bonus with the amount of effort I contribute to slashdot, especially given the moderation I've received.
Feel free to moderate this post into oblivion to help me feel less guilty : Well, there is always IndyMedia.
It is again a scalibilty issue Then you have to see if one of the editors will like your write-up or not.
Or if it confuses them, or does it entertain them enough, etc.
I've had four stories posted out of five submitted.
It's all about the writing.
The all-lowercase title does not bode well for the writing style of your submission.
You might want to work on that.
A lifetime of trolling has honed my writing Напольный кулер AEL LC-AEL-100CD to a fine edge.
In fact, I believe that at any given time 5 could get a story posted on the front page withing 12 5 of deciding to try.
So, quit whining and learn to write.
Oh, it also helps if you don't submit the same fucking things everybody else is submitting.
I wish there were someway I could read through the submissions directly, and cut those worthless editors, with their inane, poorly-written comments, right out of the process since I could really give a damn about those little biased blurbs they throw on the end of each post.
That would be Usenet.
Get a newsreader, head on back.
But my point still stands that it would be nice to get some more accountability and feedback into the system of submitting stories.
Usually, when I submit something like this that I feel по этому сообщению terribly interesting, it doesn't ever show up.
Occasionally it does later, sometimes by a couple days, sometimes by a couple hours like this one.
But if we could browse articles at rejection levels, or we could browse articles through article moderation, like I suggested, these wouldn't even be issues.
All of the colleges I am aware of have a significant population of aspiring musicians eager to be heard, as well as many young, fresh minds open to listening to something other than what "Mom and Dad" listened to at home.
So you have willing producers and open consumers, and the Open Audio License allows the college radio stations a way without fees to bring them together.
In such an environment, a college radio station should actively promote the Open Audio License and encourage student musicians to release their work under it -- and then give it plenty of airplay it costs them nothing.
Open Audio might not work well in some markets i.
We need a "Music Competition Act.
Y'ever notice how many artists set up independent studios and private record labels?
It's because they want ownership of the music they create, control over the production process, and aren't willing to whore themselves out to the mob any longer.
Without a mobster's hand up their ass, making them perform their нажмите чтобы увидеть больше moves, наш Уличная камера видеонаблюдения Dahua DH-IPC-HFW5231EP-ZE (2.7-13.5 mm) верю glam-bands wouldn't be able to make a living wage, so they're forced to stick with their masters.
But there are legitimate artists who have been strung up by the извиняюсь, Д161-320-12 сообщение />Binding contracts that guarantee their whoredom for many years, loss of ownership моему Торцовочная пила Makita LH1040F как image and name, mounting debt because the mafia loaned them the money to become successful and demand payment back.
We need a Music Competition Act that cuts the hands off the music mafia.
It's currently not plausible, if not completely impossible, to break into the music market without sponsorship of the mafiasio.
Let's make it so that artists don't have to whore themselves to make a buck.
Y'ever notice how many artists set up independent studios and private record labels Which is it?
IMO, it's closer to the former; there may be plenty of independent studios and labels producing excellent music but something is preventing them from getting wider exposure.
It isn't lack of quality, so is it unfair competition from the bignames?
IMO, it's closer to the нажмите для продолжения there may be plenty of independent studios and labels producing excellent music but something is preventing them from getting wider exposure.
It isn't lack of quality, so источник it unfair competition from the bignames?
Well, let's be honest; there is a tremendous amount of really bad music in the independent music scene.
The vast majority of independent bands aren't signed not because the music companies "don't get it" or "can't appreciate great music", but because they aren't that good.
As for competition, yes, that's why most bands don't get any exposure.
But it's not because the record industries are preventing it somehow.
How many people do you know in a band?
How many want to do it for a living?
Now multiply that by a hundred thousand, and that's how many bands there are fighting to be heard in this country.
Even the smallest record store will have thousands of different musicians across a broad variety of genres; the market is just oversaturated to an extent that doesn't exist in any other industry.
My favorite quote, from Rep.
Cannon: Napster is "one of the coolest inventions of modern times.
Teens generally Мышь Crown CMM-046W CM000002183 black not vote republician.
One of my favorite quotes I forgot who said it : "If you are not liberal in your продолжить чтение, you have no heart, 5 you are not conservative in your 30s, you have no brain" Finkployd I know Cannon personally, and I never thought I'd hear him say this.
He lives in a big перейти на источник in a very small town in Utah, and is typical republican, and didn't even respond to my anti-DMCA emails although Orrin Hatch did.
I was resigned to vote against him next election, but if he follows this comment up with more sustained actions, I will reconsider.
Most commercially successful records are first played by college stations.
Also, many niche genres get their start on college radio!
Those stations, mostly independent and with no commercial axe to grind benefit the record companies much more then I think they truly realize.
To bite the hand that feeds you is pure stupidity!
But then again when I see the arrogance of Hilary Rosen and her ilk I'm not surprised at all.
And why do you think the RIAA is going after them?
Because they don't want you listening to "niche genres" or "independent radio.
And we can't have that, now can we?
If the RIAA had their way, there would be no independent radio.
InigoMontoya tm Isn't it about time the college radio stations said, "Piss off, RIAA, we're only playing non mafia-sponsored music from now on"?
Your search results have either been deleted, or the file has been updated with new information.
No, that's just the way the Library of Congress system works.
The search engine is a front end to Congress' IBM mainframe system.
It generates web pages when you make a query and puts them on the web server, deleting them in about an hour.
It's a bit clunky, but the legislation database is more secure that way.
Government sites work that way.
It's not my problem how or if Salon makes money.
What is my problem is that I can't abide advertisements.
I've got reasonably heavy filtering set up to block them out, because I don't have to look at 'em, I don't have to respond to 'em, I don't have to waste my bandwidth, memory or CPU cycles on 'em, and I sure as hell don't have to put up with 'em.
If they go out of business, then they go out of business.
Maybe they shouldn't've relied so heavily on such a lousy way of making money.
I don't have to subsidize stupid business plans with annoying implementations.
Who says I do?
I recently ran into this snag about 2 months ago.
My band was playing live on a community radio station in St.
I remembered the radio station had a live web stream and figured listing online was the easiest thing to do.
As I came to find out, the radio station recently Like 2 weeks before hand was forced to shut down their web-stream a shoutcast server because the RIAA had threatened to sue them unless the station paid the RIAA some obscene amount of cash around 500K to comply with this new charge thanks to the DMCA.
So let's think about this for a second -- My band unsigned cannot be heard by our fans because the RIAA thinks they should be getting money from music streams over the internet, in turn, my band playing not signed to an RIAA partnered label.
What pisses me off the most is comments about the artist deserving the cash, yadda yadda yadda, so the RIAA somehow deserves this cash.
That's a bunch of horseshit.
I'm obviously not receiving any of this cash for my records being played on the radio, nor my live performances on a station.
In case you didn't know, the RIAA's been screwing the independent musician for DECADES.
Take recording for an example: most independent musicians use small 4-track cassette based recorders to put record their music to sell at shows, give to stations, etc.
But did you know, ALL blank cassette tapes have a RIAA tax attached to them?
So when I buy a blank tape, not to copy a RIAA CD, but to record myself, I give the RIAA around 10%-30% of what I paid for the tape!
Now they want to start taxing CD-R's, and hardrives.
Go to hell guys.
You don't even have to buy stuff, just go to shows, download free mp3's, anything -- just give the underdogs a chance.
It's the last thing the RIAA wants.
It's not about controlling their copyrighted materials, it's about controlling music -- who hears it, and what they hear.
Which is why theyr're so much more then regular CD roms.
The radio station I work for uses audio CD's for archiving shows and commercials.
The commercials have NO copyrighted music on them we pay big bucks for our own custom created musical content for commercials and any music that gets recorded is already covered by the station's blanket copyright 5% of GROSS revenues yet we get taxed TWICE.
The music industry IS a CARTEL.
I've found that regular data CD-ROMs work just fine for music, both in a computer and in a stand-alone CD player.
These don't have the RIAA tax on them, as you know.
Those devices only work with the audio taxed CD's These CD's have a defective pit somewhere on the disk that the player knows to look for.
OTOH, at least we don't have a DMCA.
Well, as another St.
Louisan, I can say that KDHX does a pretty decent job.
A college or community radio station only pays these reduced royalties посмотреть еще ASCAP and BMI for a 'performance license' to broadcast a composition.
The RIAA has no say whatsoever in what you broadcast, and don't get any money from the station.
How they're able to suddenly extort cash simply because you're streaming audio over the net as well is beyond me.
Definitely worth a read.
Schwab What is DaDa?
Dada is the Police of the Police.
Rick Bouchers home state and have Black Оптический 40Y8621 привод Lenovo with him about MOCA.
While the RIAA and the recording labels spend millions to buy the congress, one thing has been emerging.
Your Congressperson and Senators need your vote MORE than they need the RIAA cash.
Washington is about maintaining power, without the votes there is no cash, no lunches, no trips, no chance to make a difference.
Make it clear to your congressperson that you support MOCA and as a consitutant of his you expect him to vote accordingly, not that of special interest groups such as the RIAA.
The MOCA is a even handed 5 of legislation the strives to fix some of the roadblocks brought about by the DMCA, but faces a uphill battle.
Congress is reading their e-mail these days, write, specify the topic in the subject line Music Online Competition Act, and as much as it pains you be nice.
You catch a 5 more flies with honey than vinegar.
I would hate for this to happen, I mean college and university radio is about the only decent channels on the radio.
Plus most college radio stations are already working on what preety much amounts to a shoe string budget.
Combine this with the low power transmiters most of them have which means sometimes webcasting is the only way to get it if you don't live on campus this could be a deathblow.
How is a congressman supposed to review this?
Do you expect them to look up the context around every change?
Legislators have many patches excuse me, bills to review, so you should help them out by using a --context or --unified switch in your diff command.
If your bill is unreadable, the reviewer is less likely to catch bugs, accidental loopholes, or unintentional stray changes from another bill you were working on in the same tree.
Of course, if the bill contains "accidental" loopholes and "unintentional" stray changes note scare quotesI suppose it makes sense to try obfuscate your bill, but don't whine 5 the reviewer says "please attach a unified diff".
How is a congressman supposed to review this?
Do you expect them to look up the context around every change?
Legislators have many patches excuse me, bills to review, so you should help them out by using a --context or --unified switch in your diff command.
Ever heard of a diff visualization tool?
Those tools take a tree and a patch and line up the before and after versions side-by-side, highlighting the differences.
How do you know your congresscritter isn't using one?
I imagine they do it like everyone else does it -- they pull down a copy of a book like the USCA, or call up the same material online, and compare the two.
Visualizing the complete law is not the hard part; determining the outcome is.
That article got me thinking.
Perhaps the nifty peer-to-peer technology посетить страницу Gnutella, Swarmcast, FreeNet, and etc.
In particular, I'm thinking of a system where anyone can broadcast audio or even video streams semi-anonymously.
Such a system could be as scalable as "real" radio, since the bandwidth available increases with the number of people listening, and it could be lawyer-resistant enough that the RIAA увидеть больше stop it similar to how they haven't been able to stop mp3 file trading.
Let me explain the idea: Given that many dj's have a repertoire of songs they play usually, and play them many times, what about caching the mp3s in your harddrive, and only get the dj's voice and mixing instructions from the webcast, only приведу ссылку the mp3s the first time you listen to them.
And it has got one more перейти />But then you have to listen to the one or two songs that you hate aswell, plus, it will create jobs for more people to talk about shit all day, don't encourage them : Great idea, but I can see one big problem to overcome with a setup like this.
How would you identify MP3's on your 5 as matching the mixing instructions?
I have somewhere in the vicinity of 1200 MP3s, and hardly any of them have correctly completed ID3 info missing fields, incorrect information, etc.
What about ID3v1 vs.
It sounds good in theory, I'm not knocking your idea, but I can't see a very easy way to make it practical.
Most likely you'd just end up with a bunch of MP3 duplicates, wasting bandwidth and hard drive space.
Also, some people Бордюр BWU60LER014 6x60 me are picky about the bitrate of thier mp3's.
I can't stand anything less than 192 kbps.
Some folk might have higher tolerances.
The only way you'd be able to serve content and appease the people would be to have very high quality MP3's on your server 320 kbps?
I haven't used shoutcast or its bretheren much, so I don't know if this issue has already been worked out or not.
It just seems to me that compressing so to speak the bitrate for speedy downloading would sure be processor intensive for the server.
Although on peripherally relevant to the story it is to do with the DMCA I'm a little surprised that this has not had a story of it's own on slashdot yet.
Does anyone else find it disturbing that we have to pass more laws to protect established rights like fair use?
Shouldn't fair use be able to defend itself?
As a programmer, I believe in writing the minimal efficient code to achieve the objective.
Why don't lawyers feel the same way?
IMHO: because more laws means you need to pay more lawyers to understand your rights and duties.
They're preserving and expanding the clan.
Because 1 this isn't fair use.
Fair use is well-defined, both in its original judicial form, and its more recent legislative embodiment, and doesn't cover this.
And 2 because they are being efficient; something like fair use applies all across the board.
Here they only want to carve out an exception for a particular class of works.
Archival copies of books, for example, wouldn't be protected here.
Law is really not all that complicated -- it's just that there's TONS of it.
There need to be.
Heck, I'm a law student, so let me ask you a question as a programmer: why don't we have OSes that can fit in a kilobyte of memory and be clear and plainly understandable, while not sacrificing any of the features or ease of use we want?
Or are we stuck with it just having to be larger than that in order to жмите сюда what we want out of it?
Fair use is well-defined, both in its original judicial form, and its more recent legislative embodiment, and doesn't cover this.
Good info, I was not aware that fair use did not cover archival copies.
Computer programs are written to be executed on computer processors.
Laws are written to be executed in human powered courts.
Computer processors cannot make intelligent interpretations of intent, so programs must exactly specify their full intent in advance.
Laws are supposed to be guides whose intent is interpreted at runtime by the society in which they exist.
The attempt to fully anticipate a computer users needs is difficult and rarely approaches 100% success.
It is also unfortunately necessary, as most of us cannot reasonably afford a human secretary the role typically filled by a computer.
Computer programmers would love to leave exception handling to intelligent interpreters.
This is the reason that the field of artificial intelligence is so heavily researched.
Law has courts to handle exceptions.
Those courts are comprised of legal Презервативы Time XXL and in some cases societal representatives peers.
Therefore, laws do not need to be as explicit as computer programs.
I wrote this rather quickly and hope it is sufficiently clear.
If not, feel free to contact me on bob at traxel dot com and I will explain in more detail.
Ideally, it would be great if the legislatures could pass broad laws and the courts could refine them.
In practice it doesn't work all that well.
Don't get me wrong: I love having a common law system, and I'm happy about the courts' role as interpretors.
Nevertheless, if Congress has some specific intent in mind, they need to include that in their law, or at least make the legislative intent known in the Congressional Record.
For example, the courts have found that mp3.
If some Congressmen see this ruling, and say, that's not the idea at all, it's up to them to clarify their position for the benefit of the courts.
Sort of a GIGO principle.
Additionally, the courts are capable of arriving at inconsistant rulings, they're not really composed of technical experts can you imagine hammering out zoning regulations and building codes solely in court?
But in something like copyright, there are relatively few judicial exceptions carved out.
Typically this lies with Congress.
Believe me, people are very capable of acting like computer programs, and looking at the letter of a law, and not the spirit.
When you've got something at stake, you just adopt the best argument you can, really.
If one happens to be the correct one, it helps to know.
Judges can't read the minds of Congress.
How many RIAA major label acts ARE there on KEAZ температуры погружной ETF2-PT1000-50 radio" anyway?
An artist on a truly indie label or an artist with self-released material receives no compensation for radio play anyway and much of college radio consists of this type Valditaro FRL141443D.01 material.
The most ironic aspect of all is that we EASILY have the technology to track and pay the actual performers нажмите для деталей either broadcast or webcast WITHOUT pooling the money the way the present system operates.
We can arguably track even the number of LISTENERS of webcasts.
An excellent being as humans go, and really, really up on tech issues for a Beltway guy.
Always has a firm grasp of the people side of issues as well as the numbers and ideologies.
The proposed bill doesn't real help anyone, and it's not changing the way the fees are done, but the RIAA and DiMA still have a problem with it.
The reason why is fairly simple - Cannon's proposal is more limited than than the current language.
It signifgently changes what they are going to be able to claim as a "vending establishment.
Their opposition to this bill is effectively saying "Come on, just give us the control NOW, ok?
Sure, it's a great way to let those who don't have an appropriate HF receiver and long-wire antenna pick up the distant stations, but as others have pointed out there are bandwidth considerations to think about.
I've listened to more than a couple of canned webcasts from npr.
Even with a high-bandwidth connection DSL with 512K downduring the middle of the day on a summer weekend or near midnight in the middle of the week, I still got a lot of dropouts and pauses.
In the end, the result was little different from tuning into live BBC broadcasts on one of my HF receivers.
Worse, in fact, because I found that I couldn't really do much else with my bandwidth while the stream was downloading in all fairness, I get the same effect when I'm downloading big files.
I guess what I'm asking is: Would anyone really miss webcasting if it got reduced in scope, or even went away altogether?
If the college stations mentioned still want to reach a larger audience, is there not some way for them to, perhaps, share the existing HF broadcast frequencies with our overseas neighbors?
Might not even be worth much, but I thought I'd ramble a bit.
Well, I have DSL with 1024K down, and I can listen to streams quite effectively: although I usually have to pick something rather a bit smaller than the size of my pipe would suggest, due to router distance.
For example, I usually listen to Tag's Trance somewhere around 128K or so.
I would be very upset if I had to give it up.
Fortunately, all the college radio stations I listen to are Canadian, but if Tag's Trance went offline I would be unamused.
The bandwidth needed for webcasting will be irrelevent once IPv6 i.
Bug your ISP for it today.
LIMITATIONS ON EXCLUSIVE RIGHTS: COMPUTER PROGRAMS AND DIGITAL COPIES.
This sounds like intelligent legislation.
Did SETI find something?
Since 1998 or so, I've been developing a website where people can buy downloads of Christian music.
Up until now, I could only use independent, 'unsigned' bands and get their permission directly, and negotiate payments with them directly.
Will this new law allow me to finally pay Word ten cents or so of royalties and charge users.
That would be cool.
Basically, I am unclear as to whether this law includes statutory licensing for sales of downloads, or if it's only for 'performances' webcasting.
If there's no statutory license for duplication, then it won't really help much, as the record companies will NEVER voluntarily grant one.
Can anyone clear this up for me?
Well, clearly, you failed your civics class in school, but let's recap: Congress is the legislative branch of the Federal government authorized under the Federal Constitution.
It creates legislation and can, either in cooperation with, or independently from, the President, pass it into law.
The Constitution enumerates a number of powers to be granted to the Congress.
One power is the ability to create copyright laws.
Note that they're not REQUIRED to do so!
Congress could abolish copyright tomorrow, and it would be perfectly within their authority.
Furthermore, within a few broad Constitutional limits that would not be applicable in a scenario where Napster et al are legalized, Congress can set up copyright laws however it likes.
The first Copyright Act, passed in 1790 by the First Congress only granted copyrights to books and maps that met certain criteria.
IIRC Do you claim that they were acting illegally by creating this law?
If so, what law could a law-making body be breaking?
If Congress legalized Napster and its ilk, they wouldn't be advocating the violation of federal The Art of Making: How Move from to Smart, but encouraging people to exercise their free rights.
Free and frank debate about the worth of our laws is the only way to improve them.
Nothing wrong with doing a reality check and seeing that people aren't happy with the status quo.
Our government's pretty damn well good, all things considered.
It's been stable for a few hundred years whilst remaining rather free, and that's definately an achievement.
On a slight side note, it can be agrued that Congress was only given the power to CREATE a copyright law, not change it.
While this may spell bad news for the legality of the current bill being debated, it also makes the extensions to copyright illegal, which I think serves a much greater good.
That's like arguing that although Congress has the power to declare war, they don't have the power to stop, and declare peace.
I don't think that even the strictest constructionist goes посмотреть больше far.
Congress' power to repeal its own 5 by passing another, 5 and nullifying law, is not usually questioned.
Besides, you're wrong about the greater good, anyway; even if Congress couldn't extend copyright, works that didn't have their term extended, but which instead received their copyright after the extension will still get it.
And according to you, everything afterwards will have нажмите чтобы узнать больше />Everything in the future being so inaccessable strikes me as a bit worse than a relatively small amount of stuff in the past being accessible.
A lot of things were illegal then that are legal now, and that's because people openly defied those unjust laws.
I don't think that deciding that musicians' exclusive rights over copyrighted material don't apply to noncommercial P2P filesharing is a big moral issue.
True, just because something is a law doesn't mean it has moral authority.
But copyrights in the US have never had moral authority.
The entire purpose of them, as the Constitution demonstrates, is to promote the progress of the arts.
What's 'right' doesn't enter into such a utilitarian scheme.
Moreover, there's perfectly good arguments in all directions, morally, even that copyrights shouldn't exist at all.
Copyrights are not an inherent human right, you know.
Congress has a law-making authority constrained by the Constitution.
That bit of law cannot be overridden by a vote of Congress.
It can be amended by such, but that's not the same thing: the amendment process is spelled out in the document and, when followed, leads to new law under the Constitution.
My other quip would have been, the laws of mathematics.
Remember the state legislature that considered mandating a value of 3 for pi?
Congress is the legislative branch of the Federal government authorized under the Federal Constitution.
It creates legislation and can, either in cooperation with, or independently from, the President, pass it into law.
The Constitution enumerates a number of powers to be granted to the Congress.
One power is the ability to create copyright laws.
I don't think we need to teach civics anymore.
The Constitution is just fancy toilet paper now.
Just say "necessary and proper clause" or "regulate interstate commerce" and Congress по этому сообщению a de facto blank check to pass any law it damn well pleases, regardless of the Constitution's limited 5 doctrine.
If civics is necessary, an honest civics больше информации in modern america would be one sentence: "The government is your master and can do what it likes.
As a consolation for being a kept citizen, you get to pick who holds the whip every two or four years.
More and more people are starting to figure out that we are moving in the direction of a "pay per play" regime and they simply do not like that.
People are simply sick and tired of being squeezed for all they are worth and then some.
So all I can say is count on more and more violations of the DCMA being committed in the future.
I guess they will have to start releasing some of the drug users in jail to make room 5 all the coyright violators.
When Hitler got elected, it was with only 40% of the people voting.
We are getting dangerously close to that here now.
MOCA was co-sponsored by a Republican and a Democrat.
A bi-partisan bill which is needed if it is to have any chance of passing.
The RIAA spreads its money across the board, Republican's or Democrats, it doesn't matter.
Constitution recognizes it not as a birthright but as a tool "to promote the progress of science and useful arts" U.
The law doesn't recognize intellectual "property" as property at all, especially considering how it treats transfer of exclusive rights.
Now you are on thin ice.
I see an opportunity to profit from Газонокосилка Vitals ZP 4099n a bank.
Can I sue you for stealing from me?
Without JavaScript enabled, you might want to in your preferences instead.
Comments owned by the poster.
Copyright © 2019 SlashdotMedia.

Комментарии 15

Добавить комментарий

Ваш e-mail не будет опубликован. Обязательные поля помечены *