Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > AllOfMP3.com

AllOfMP3.com
Thread Tools
ambush
Banned
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: -
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 3, 2006, 07:15 PM
 
Be honest, did you ever use their service?

1.20$ albums are cool
Especially when they're legal in Canada.
     
Scifience
Mac Elite
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Kyoto, Japan
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 3, 2006, 07:18 PM
 
You working for the RIAA now, trying to find people to sue? :-P

Yes, I've used it. It is great, and I would absolutely hate to see it get shut down, even if it is illegal. So much more convenient than P2P, and way cheaper than iTunes, plus no DRM!
     
ambush  (op)
Banned
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: -
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 3, 2006, 07:22 PM
 
I'd like to find a "more" legal alternative with such low prices. At last something I can really afford. .99 per song is out of my budget.

No DRM, multi encoding options (320KBPS AAC anyone? or even lossless!), LOTS of TRACKS (Joy Division's Complete BBC Appearances anyone? ... this is bootleg-level stuff)

I LOVE IT!
I don't think it's getting illegal here anytime soon
     
Mithras
Professional Poster
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: :ИOITAↃO⅃
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 3, 2006, 07:48 PM
 
I really don't understand the appeal. People complain about the RIAA paying artists "nothing". Well guess what, allofmp3 really pays artists nothing.
     
hayesk
Guest
Status:
Reply With Quote
Jun 3, 2006, 07:49 PM
 
Originally Posted by ambush
Be honest, did you ever use their service?

1.20$ albums are cool
Especially when they're legal in Canada.
Does AllOfMP3 pay the artists a portion of their sales? Even the RIAA pays their artists something.

If the answer to that question is no, then I'm staying away from it. I'd rather not give my money to people leeching off the hard work of others without any compensation.
     
Scifience
Mac Elite
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Kyoto, Japan
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 3, 2006, 07:54 PM
 
Originally Posted by hayesk
Does AllOfMP3 pay the artists a portion of their sales? Even the RIAA pays their artists something.

If the answer to that question is no, then I'm staying away from it. I'd rather not give my money to people leeching off the hard work of others without any compensation.
From their site:

The availability over the Internet of the ALLOFMP3.com materials is authorized by the license # LS-3М-05-03 of the Russian Multimedia and Internet Society (ROMS) and license # 006/3M-05 of the Rightholders Federation for Collective Copyright Management of Works Used Interactively (FAIR). In accordance to the licenses' terms MediaServices pays license fees for all materials downloaded from the site subject to the Law of the Russian Federation "On Copyright and Related Rights". All these materials are solely for personal use. Any further distribution, resale or broadcasting are prohibited.

The works available from ALLOFMP3.com are protected by the Law of the Russian Federation "On Copyright and Related Rights" and are for personal use of a buyer. Commercial use of such material is prohibited. Recording, copying, distribution on any media is possible only upon special consent of a Rightholder.

The user bears sole responsibility for any use and distribution of all materials received from AllOFMP3.com. This responsibility is dependent on the national legislation in each user's country of residence. The Administration of AllOFMP3.com does not possess information on the laws of each particular country and is not responsible for the actions of foreign users.
     
Busemann
Mac Elite
Join Date: Feb 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 3, 2006, 08:04 PM
 
Originally Posted by hayesk
Does AllOfMP3 pay the artists a portion of their sales?
No.

Artists that have their works on there have been asked this, and none have received a dime
     
ambush  (op)
Banned
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: -
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 3, 2006, 08:04 PM
 
I guess we'll miss the good ol' time in 2015 when all the computers will have trusted computing built-in.
     
eltrut
Forum Regular
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: retaw
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 3, 2006, 10:23 PM
 
Anyone paying AllofMP3 is an idiot. It's the russian mafia, nothing else. It's obviously only legal because of a loophole in the Russian law, so go figure.
     
Scifience
Mac Elite
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Kyoto, Japan
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 3, 2006, 10:57 PM
 
Originally Posted by eltrut
Anyone paying AllofMP3 is an idiot. It's the russian mafia, nothing else. It's obviously only legal because of a loophole in the Russian law, so go figure.
I really don't care. I buy CDs of music I like - I much prefer having a physical product to some downloaded files. However, to see if I like the album, I'd much rather pay $1.20 than $10, and if I were to download over P2P, I'd have to spend hours of my valuable time searching for a decent quality file.

The only reason I'm using Allofmp3 is the convenience factor.
     
Obi Wan's Ghost
Baninated
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: An asteroid remanent of Tatooine.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 3, 2006, 10:57 PM
 
Originally Posted by eltrut
Anyone paying AllofMP3 is an idiot. It's the russian mafia, nothing else. It's obviously only legal because of a loophole in the Russian law, so go figure.
I heard they got the money and resources to set up the site from money they make from smuggling and prostitution and that they are still involved in many criminal activities.
     
ambush  (op)
Banned
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: -
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 3, 2006, 11:56 PM
 
Can I see a proof of the mafia connection? This would be enough to stop me from paying them another 10 bucks.
     
Salty
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Winnipeg, MB
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 4, 2006, 12:17 AM
 
Honestly 10 bucks for an album isn't bad. Considering most of the bands I listen to are never going to make back from album sales what it cost to produce the album. At least they won't make much more in most cases. That said the 20 bucks I've been paying lately for recently released stuff that for some reason the Christian labels are keeping off iTunes is freaking pissing me off. Wait let me rephrase that, they're keeping it off iTunes CANADA. Why? Well our dollar is worth a bit less than the American one, and we're all used to paying 20+ dollars an album up here so they'll just keep bilking us! Of course I imagine this is more the fact that most Christian artists get distributed by EMI, who are probably the ones making the decision. Either way pisses me off.
That said most of the album I've bought I've really enjoyed so I'm not going to complain too much... Mat Kearney's new one is flipping awesome, as is Paul Wright's Sunrise to Sunset. Both available only on iTunes in the states... sigh...
     
Mastrap
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Toronto
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 4, 2006, 01:57 AM
 
Do you really want to give your credit card details to a shady Russian music server?
     
Obi Wan's Ghost
Baninated
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: An asteroid remanent of Tatooine.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 4, 2006, 02:02 AM
 
Originally Posted by ambush
Can I see a proof of the mafia connection? This would be enough to stop me from paying them another 10 bucks.
I don't think a mafia leaves clues like that

I think the main question being asked are

How does a new Russian company find the financing to do the following

1 Buy a huge collection of music mostly unavailable in Russia
2 Easily get a bank account to process the revenue without any hassle from the meddling authorities
3 Pay for expensive hosting
4 Pay for web design and programming
5 Distribute music without the permission of its creators
6 Distribute music without paying its creators
7 Run a business in Russia without interference from crime syndicates

For some Russians to start doing that they need to have lots of money, balls and connections before they lift a finger to type <html>
( Last edited by Obi Wan's Ghost; Jun 4, 2006 at 02:18 AM. )
     
Chuckit
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 4, 2006, 02:10 AM
 
By that logic ("if he has enough money to make big investments, he's in the Mafia"), Bill Gates must be the Godfather.
Chuck
___
"Instead of either 'multi-talented' or 'multitalented' use 'bisexual'."
     
Obi Wan's Ghost
Baninated
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: An asteroid remanent of Tatooine.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 4, 2006, 02:16 AM
 
Originally Posted by Chuckit
By that logic ("if he has enough money to make big investments, he's in the Mafia"), Bill Gates must be the Godfather.
By your follow up logic the USA is like Russia - an impoverished people with nothing to eat, all successful business started up by or bullied by criminals, and a currency worth so little American women have to sell themselves on the streets of Uzbekistan.

Illogical. Gates started his business in a world the complete opposite of Russia.
     
qnxde
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Sydney, Australia
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 4, 2006, 02:43 AM
 
Originally Posted by Mastrap
Do you really want to give your credit card details to a shady Russian music server?
Any fraud resulting from this is the credit card company's problem, not mine.

You can't eat all those hamburgers, you hear me you ridiculous man?
     
Obi Wan's Ghost
Baninated
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: An asteroid remanent of Tatooine.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 4, 2006, 02:49 AM
 
The point is if you're going to download music that the industry says is stolen property you might as well do it for free. Right?
     
hayesk
Guest
Status:
Reply With Quote
Jun 4, 2006, 11:03 AM
 
Originally Posted by qnxde
Any fraud resulting from this is the credit card company's problem, not mine.
Yes, because they pay for investigation and losses due to fraud out of their own pockets, right? Hmm... now where would that money come from?

I fully expect all credit cards to come with a mandatory "fraud insurance" annual payment in the next few years. Then it will be your problem.
     
KeyLimePi
Mac Elite
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Baltimore
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 5, 2006, 08:42 AM
 
Giving them my credit card is the only thing that has stopped me from buying from them.

They list a Paypal option, but when I went to it they said it was temporarily out of service.

Those of you who have bought from them, how is the sound quality of the MP3s?
     
eltrut
Forum Regular
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: retaw
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 5, 2006, 11:20 AM
 
Originally Posted by hayesk
I fully expect all credit cards to come with a mandatory "fraud insurance" annual payment in the next few years. Then it will be your problem.
Not an unrealistic scenario.

What also could happen is that the cc company blocks any transactions to Russia. How many people buy legit stuff in Russia. Come on now...
     
fiercewill
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Dec 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 5, 2006, 03:49 PM
 
I've been using allofmp3.com for several years, and will continue to do so until the day they go under. They operate in a very gray area of the law. It's inevitable that eventually the RIAA will find a way to shut them down. It's an awesome website and offers some great choices as far as encoding options. If the RIAA would get a damn clue and release something that offers music in the same fashion I would gladly buy from a site in the US vs. Russia - until that day, frankly I don't care how they did it, only that they did and it works.

For those curious about sound quality, here's a breakdown of all the options offered for encoding your selection:

MP3 (codec: LAME)
Constant bitrate (cbr) 128kbps -320kbps
Variable bitrate (abr) 128-256kbps
or choose using a predetermined 'quality selection' of Standard( ~190kbps), Extreme(~240kbps) Insane (~320kbps)

WMA (codec WMA7, WMA8 or WMA9[one-pass or two-pass)
Constant bitrates of 128kbps - 320kbps

OGG (codec Vorbis)
Variable bitrates 128kbps - 320kbps
or Quality based Variable bitrates Q3-Q10

MPEG-4 (AAC)
Constant bitrates 128kbps - 320kbps
or VBR Quality selection Normal, Extreme, Audiophile, or Transcoding.

MPC - Codec MusePack MPC
Quality selections - Radio, Standard, Extreme, Insane, or Braindead.

LOSSLESS various formats
Codec and format selections are -
Monkey's Audio Lossless
OptimFROG Lossless
FLAC Lossless
PCM Wave
WMA 9 Lossless
[Note when choosing lossless formats: performing this function will allow you to get an exact copy of the tracks from the original CD. You may burn these to CD-R and they will be the exact same quality as the original audio CD.]

You choose the encoding option for everything you want, you pay only once a file has been downloaded. If you encode the file using one of their available methods and later decide not to download it, you won't pay a penny. Everything you download is .02 per megabyte. typical songs are in the .08 - .25 range. Obviously if you choose a lossless format the file is larger thus the price gets larger - still almost always cheaper than iTunes .99 pricetag.

As far as paypal being accepted on the site - that is the method I used when I first purchased about $100 credit for my account - they have since stopped offering paypal as a payment method. When my money runs out, I'll have to pay via cc. I'll tell you right now that I've gotten quite a lot of great music for that first $100 I gave em.

Try it out.
     
SpaceMonkey
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Washington, DC
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 5, 2006, 04:00 PM
 
Originally Posted by fiercewill
If the RIAA would get a damn clue and release something that offers music in the same fashion I would gladly buy from a site in the US vs. Russia - until that day, frankly I don't care how they did it, only that they did and it works.
You do realize that it is because AllOfMP3.com is in a "grey area" that it can offer music at ridiculously cheap prices? The legit music industry can't operate that way.

"One ticket to Washington, please. I have a date with destiny."
     
eltrut
Forum Regular
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: retaw
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 5, 2006, 04:50 PM
 
Originally Posted by fiercewill
They operate in a very gray area of the law.
...
If the RIAA would get a damn clue and release something that offers music in the same fashion I would gladly buy from a site in the US vs. Russia - until that day, frankly I don't care how they did it, only that they did and it works.
Wow, most schizophrenic (opportunistic) view ever.

Btw, the RIA doesn't release or offer any music.
     
Kr0nos
Mac Elite
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: On the dancefloor, doing the boogaloo…
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 6, 2006, 06:28 AM
 
Originally Posted by fiercewill
It's inevitable that eventually the RIAA will find a way to shut them down.
RIAA shutting down the Russian mob? Heh! That'll be the day.

If I change my way of living, and if I pave my streets with good times, will the mountain keep on giving…
     
Mastrap
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Toronto
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 6, 2006, 07:06 AM
 
Originally Posted by eltrut
What also could happen is that the cc company blocks any transactions to Russia. How many people buy legit stuff in Russia. Come on now...
What?
     
Dork.
Professional Poster
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Rochester, NY
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 6, 2006, 08:07 AM
 
If allofmp3.com is good for anything, it proves that there are no technical reasons why songs couldn't be offered cheaply, and proves how much of a premium RIAA members are charging for their artists' music over and above the costs of distribution. If most songs on allofmp3.com can be sold for 8¢ to 25¢, then where is the other 75¢ to 92¢ going? I think Apple is on record saying that the record companies get the lion's share of the revenue from iTunes sales.

The value of a song is more than the distribution costs, of course, and artists and composers must be compensated for their work just like anyone else. But how much compensation does an artist really get per song on iTunes anyway? And who determines that value? Right now, it seems to be set by the RIAA member companies who distribute the music, and it seems to be set artificially high. allofmp3.com can make a business out of selling music for 2¢ per megabyte while not compensating the rights holders. What do you need to sell music for per megabyte in order to give people incentive to make more music?
     
Obi Wan's Ghost
Baninated
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: An asteroid remanent of Tatooine.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 6, 2006, 08:39 AM
 
Originally Posted by Dork.
If allofmp3.com is good for anything, it proves that there are no technical reasons why songs couldn't be offered cheaply, and proves how much of a premium RIAA members are charging for their artists' music over and above the costs of distribution. If most songs on allofmp3.com can be sold for 8¢ to 25¢, then where is the other 75¢ to 92¢ going?
allofmp3.com could charge 5 cents a song. They are selling STOLEN music.
     
baw
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jun 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 6, 2006, 08:43 AM
 
     
Dork.
Professional Poster
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Rochester, NY
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 6, 2006, 08:56 AM
 
Originally Posted by Obi Wan's Ghost
allofmp3.com could charge 5 cents a song. They are selling STOLEN music.
Sigh. Let's ignore the semantic distinction between copyright infringement and theft for a moment. If we do that, then yes, they are selling "stolen" music. My point is that they since they can provide this service at this price in all sorts of different formats that their customers want, then the price difference between allofmp3.com and legitimate sites is directly due to the payment of rights holders. And that price difference is huge, in some cases amounting to over 90% of the cost of distribution.

If the main role of RIAA member companies is distribution and promotion, and both are getting cheaper in the Internet age, then why can the RIAA member companies command such a premium?
     
Obi Wan's Ghost
Baninated
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: An asteroid remanent of Tatooine.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 6, 2006, 09:01 AM
 
Originally Posted by Dork.
If the main role of RIAA member companies is distribution and promotion, and both are getting cheaper in the Internet age, then why can the RIAA member companies command such a premium?

Unless you're a commie loser or pirating thief you might have noticed recent history has proven that humans are more creative and inventive when there are financial rewards that secure their future. If you have a problem with companies and artists profiting from their work you have every right not to buy their work. You do not have the right to deny them their rewards by stealing and reselling what was stolen.

Ask yourself where does that Russian site get all its graphics and music from when they don't have permission in the first place? They steal everything and they are criminals behind a pretty facade. You want to help them launder drug and blood money go ahead. I hope you do get fined by the RIAA for doing so.

You forget that the music industry employs a lot of people. Gives them jobs. It's not just one scummy band and a guy in a suit with a cigar getting all the money. It's your Mac using ass doing graphics and videos. It's your uncle driving the truck or piloting the plane. It's those guys who make the CDs and cases. And the guys who design and program the iTMS. Those kids in the music shops stuffing the shelves. Millions of people.

allofmp3 doesn't pay nobody but two handfuls of people and some mafia.
     
Dork.
Professional Poster
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Rochester, NY
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 6, 2006, 09:24 AM
 
Originally Posted by Obi Wan's Ghost
Unless you're a commie loser or pirating thief you might have noticed recent history has proven that humans are more creative and inventive when there are financial rewards that secure their future. If you have a problem with companies and artists profiting from their work you have every right not to buy their work. You do not have the right to deny them their rewards by stealing and reselling what was stolen.

Ask yourself where does that Russian site get all its graphics and music from when they don't have permission in the first place? They steal everything and they are criminals behind a pretty facade. You want to help them launder drug and blood money go ahead. I hope you do get fined by the RIAA for doing so.

You forget that the music industry employs a lot of people. Gives them jobs. It's not just one scummy band and a guy in a suit with a cigar getting all the money. It's your Mac using ass doing graphics and videos. It's your uncle driving the truck or piloting the plane. It's those guys who make the CDs and cases. And the guys who design and program the iTMS. Those kids in the music shops stuffing the shelves. Millions of people.

allofmp3 doesn't pay nobody but two handfuls of people and some mafia.
Congratulations for turning everything I say into a bizzare absolute, Master Jedi. But your mind powers will not work on me!

In case you didn't notice, I'm not proposing we not pay artists and the people who support them, nor am I disputing the fact that since they use a loophole in Russian law to aviod paying artists, even if there is a legal justification for their existence, they are on the wrong side of the moral fence. But I am saying that the existence of allofmp3.com is proof positive that there is a lot of margin built into the music business. And although some of it is necessary, it might not all be. If you know anything about the recording business, you know that professional-level recording tools are becoming available to the average amateur and semi-pro musician at price levels that simply didn't exist twenty years ago. The barrier to entry is much lower. If you care about the bling, of course, the Recording Industry will always be there to give you your coke and hookers. But if you care about the music, it's more possible to get your music heard now, and maybe even make a living sellign your music yourself without the record company overhead.

A good parallel (and one that I know a lot about since I live in Rochester, NY) is the story of Kodak. Twenty years ago, film was vital for everyone, and Kodak made a lot of money selling it. While ther was considerable R&D involved in making new types of film, Kodak still sold film for ridiculous margins and made a ton of money. Now, of course, digital cameras have eaten Kodak's film business. While Kodak is still a major player in the digital camera business, they are not making nearly the same amount of money.

When you buy your next digital camera, will you think of all the people in Rochester that your purchasing decions have put out of work? (I know a bunch of them personally.) Of course you don't, because technology progresses, and the same technological change that made Kodak a near-monopoly for most of the past century is conspiring to make it a footnote in the current one. It's absurd to think that your purchasing decisions are not responsible for that.

Before you give your knee-jerk "But I didn't steal my digital camera", remember that this isn't about buying music from allofmp3.com, it's about what companies do when technology takes away its inherent advantage. The RIAA is simply less relevant than it was 20 years ago, or would be if copyright law did not favor content distributors so much.
     
cpt kangarooski
Mac Elite
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 6, 2006, 10:01 AM
 
Obi Wan's Ghost--
Unless you're a commie loser or pirating thief you might have noticed recent history has proven that humans are more creative and inventive when there are financial rewards that secure their future.
Well, only to a point actually. If I gave you a million dollars for you to paint for me full time, you're not going to get more productive if I give you two million dollars to paint for me full time. You'd already be at capacity.

Plus, if you're willing to paint full time for a paltry $50,000, then I can save $950,000 and I have every reason to do so. Because while you are self-interested, and want me to pay you as much as you can get from me, I am equally self-interested and want to pay you as little as I can while still getting as much as I can get from you.

And further, if you're willing to paint 90% of those paintings for free, because you love to paint, and I'm really only paying you what it takes to support you for the other 10% of the time, then I have to consider whether 10% of your output is worth $50,000 to me, when I could have 90% of it pretty much for free.

Basically, copyright involves ignoring what artists and publishers want and focusing on what the public at large wants. The public has a number of desires beyond merely having more works created, such as having the most freedom with regard to those works. An ideal world would be one with maximum artistic creation and no copyright, so that everyone could get a copy of everything at dirt-cheap prices. In the real world we have to make trade-offs, but always in the public interest. If we want to increase artistic creation, we might give them a little bit more of a reward, but never too much. After all, we don't want to reward artists for the hell of it, and we have to keep a close eye on the effect upon output; we want the best deal: the most art for the least cost. This is pretty certainly less than the most art at any cost.

If you have a problem with companies and artists profiting from their work you have every right not to buy their work. You do not have the right to deny them their rewards by stealing and reselling what was stolen.
Well, we're the ones who give them a right to their work. So if we want to deny them their rewards then that is actually our perogative. We need only change the copyright laws accordingly. This might result in artists creating less, but if it's still worth it to us, even taking that into account, then by all means we ought to do it.

Personally I think we only need to reduce copyright significantly, in length and scope, and it will work better for everyone. I don't support getting rid of it. But I do support making it pretty much inapplicable to ordinary people acting non-commercially.

You forget that the music industry employs a lot of people.
I don't care. If every road was a toll road, with a tollbooth at every street corner, that would employ a lot of people. But it would still be bad for the economy and freedom of travel. We'd be better off without it, even if we lost those pointless jobs.

As it happens, a lot of the music industry wouldn't be out of work even if copyright vanished tomorrow. This is because publishing industries can publish public domain works just as well as they can publish copyrighted works. They might not profit as much, but it's still possible to stay in business.
--
This and all my other posts are hereby in the public domain. I am a lawyer. But I'm not your lawyer, and this isn't legal advice.
     
   
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:49 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,