ISBN 10: 1467995576 / ISBN 13: 9781467995573
Usato / Quantità: 0
Copie del libro da altre librerie
Mostra tutte le  copie di questo libro

Libro

Purtroppo questa copia non è più disponibile. Di seguito ti proponiamo una lista di copie simili.

Descrizione:

This Book is in Good Condition. Clean Copy With Light Amount of Wear. 100% Guaranteed. Summary: Viacom and Google have settled this case, as reported on March 18, 2014, a week before oral arguments scheduled in the 2nd Circuit on March 24, 2014. Thank you. Does anyone really think US Copyright Law asserts that a copyright owner has to send Google/YouTube a "DMCA TakeDown Notice" so that they can infringe you in seconds and then never pay you a nickel after you finally get your content removed? No. On June 23, 2010, the case known as Viacom International, Inc./Paramount Pictures vs. Google, Inc. /YouTube, Inc. (07-cv-02103, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York (Manhattan)) was decided by United States District Judge, Louis L. Stanton. This district level federal case which dragged for three (3) years concerned the infringement and exposition of Viacom's copyrighted content on a public display by YouTube, owned and operated by Google. The public display was-and still is-an immediate worldwide distribution. Viacom asked for $1 billion USD in damages, but Judge Stanton ruled against Viacom and in favor of YouTube. YouTube claimed their business was defined as a "service provider" under the provision that classifies a service provider inside HR 2281, the law document also known as The Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998 (DMCA). According to Google/YouTube, their existence as a combined company was not responsible for any infringement that occurs on their business model which existed, and still does exist, on the Internet. Only if a content owner notified them properly, in accordance with a so-called phrase characterized as a "DMCA Takedown Notice", could Google/YouTube then act and remove (or block) the infringed content. The court released over five hundred sixty-three documents of evidence that contained emails, text messages, depositions, white sheets, financial statements, etc. for public consumption. In addition, all arguments, case law, statutes, amici curiae, authorities, and judgments are public record. Viacom provides a majority of these documents on their litigation homepage with additional essays that attempt to explain the law in their favor. However, Viacom still lost the case. Therefore, in actuality these documents portray themselves as a plea for assistance-to find the truth; to find the facts. This book is the result of reading every document in that case, line-by-line, amid the study of the statutes, case-law, legislative material, non-redacted evidence, and additional facts with the knowledge of computer science, which apparently is lacking with lawyers, judges, and even the US Congress, but certainly not with Google, YouTube and many clones. Available here are all of the briefs submitted to Viacom's counsel that were created by discovery in the order presented, leading to an amicus curiae equivalent that argues 17 USC 512(k)(1), the 1998 "service provider" definition inside HR 2281. QUESTION: Are Google and YouTube really service providers under 17 USC 512(k)(1)(B)? They claim that they are; however, copyrights are a secured exclusive right, a monopolistic right with trademarks and patents demarcated by Congress under Article 1, Section 8, Clause 8 of the US Constitution. In fact, copyrights are not a third place, runner-up, sacrificial lamb for a new form of free speech that creates environments to "assert other people's speeches" without permission in "bad faith". The Bible of Digital Copyright Law will find that Google and YouTube are not service providers under 17 USC 512(k)(1)(A) and/or 17 USC 512(k)(1)(B). And if a Bible of Digital Copyright Law proves that is true, then how much has actually been stolen from copyright and trademark owners by pressing buttons? RESOLVED: An argument in digital copyright law. The US 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals reversed that District Court Decision. COPYRIGHT:Copyright (c) 2010-2011 ALAN COLOSI. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Codice inventario libreria

Su questo libro:

Book ratings provided by GoodReads):
5 valutazione media
(1 valutazioni)

Riassunto: Does anyone really think US Copyright Law asserts that a copyright owner has to send Google/YouTube a "DMCA TakeDown Notice" so that they can infringe you in seconds and then never pay you a nickel after you finally get your content removed? No.

What if Google/YouTube LIED in a 3/11/2010 Memorandum of Law in US Federal Court asserting no downloads (when everything was), and then submitted that lie to a US Federal judge?

On June 23, 2010, the case known as Viacom International, Inc./Paramount Pictures vs. Google, Inc. /YouTube, Inc. (07-cv-02103, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York (Manhattan)) was decided by United States District Judge, Louis L. Stanton. This district level federal case which dragged for three (3) years concerned the infringement and exposition of Viacom?s copyrighted content on a public display by YouTube, owned and operated by Google. The public display was?and still is?an immediate worldwide distribution. Viacom asked for $1 billion USD in damages, but Judge Stanton ruled against Viacom and in favor of YouTube. YouTube claimed their business was defined as a ?service provider? under the provision that classifies a service provider inside HR 2281, the law document also known as The Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998 (DMCA). According to Google/YouTube, their existence as a combined company was not responsible for any infringement that occurs on their business model which existed, and still does exist, on the Internet. Only if a content owner notified them properly, in accordance with a so-called phrase characterized as a ?DMCA Takedown Notice?, could Google/YouTube then act and remove (or block) the infringed content.

The court released over five hundred sixty-three documents of evidence that contained emails, text messages, depositions, white sheets, financial statements, etc. for public consumption. In addition, all arguments, case law, statutes, amici curiae, authorities, and judgments are public record. Viacom provides a majority of these documents on their litigation homepage with additional essays that attempt to explain the law in their favor. However, Viacom still lost the case. Therefore, in actuality these documents portray themselves as a plea for assistance?to find the truth; to find the facts.

This book is the result of reading every document in that case, line-by-line, amid the study of the statutes, case-law, legislative material, non-redacted evidence, and additional facts with the knowledge of computer science, which apparently is lacking with lawyers, judges, and even the US Congress, but certainly not with Google, YouTube and many clones.

Available here are all of the briefs submitted to Viacom's counsel that were created by discovery in the order presented, leading to an amicus curiae equivalent that argues 17 USC § 512(k)(1), the 1998 "service provider" definition inside HR 2281.

QUESTION: Are Google and YouTube really service providers under 17 USC § 512(k)(1)(B)? They claim that they are; however, copyrights are a secured exclusive right, a monopolistic right with trademarks and patents demarcated by Congress under Article 1, Section 8, Clause 8 of the US Constitution. In fact, copyrights are not a third place, runner-up, sacrificial lamb for a new form of free speech that creates environments to "assert other people's speeches" without permission in "bad faith".

The Bible of Digital Copyright Law will find that Google and YouTube are not service providers under 17 USC § 512(k)(1)(A) and/or 17 USC § 512(k)(1)(B). And if a Bible of Digital Copyright Law proves that is true, then how much has actually been stolen from copyright and trademark owners by pressing buttons?

RESOLVED: An argument in digital copyright law. The US 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals reversed that District Court Decision.

COPYRIGHT: Copyright © 2010-2011 ALAN COLOSI. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

Sinossi: Viacom and Google have settled this case, as reported on March 18, 2014, a week before oral arguments scheduled in the 2nd Circuit on March 24, 2014. Thank you.

Does anyone really think US Copyright Law asserts that a copyright owner has to send Google/YouTube a "DMCA TakeDown Notice" so that they can infringe you in seconds and then never pay you a nickel after you finally get your content removed? No.

On June 23, 2010, the case known as Viacom International, Inc./Paramount Pictures vs. Google, Inc. /YouTube, Inc. (07-cv-02103, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York (Manhattan)) was decided by United States District Judge, Louis L. Stanton. This district level federal case which dragged for three (3) years concerned the infringement and exposition of Viacom?s copyrighted content on a public display by YouTube, owned and operated by Google. The public display was?and still is?an immediate worldwide distribution. Viacom asked for $1 billion USD in damages, but Judge Stanton ruled against Viacom and in favor of YouTube. YouTube claimed their business was defined as a ?service provider? under the provision that classifies a service provider inside HR 2281, the law document also known as The Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998 (DMCA). According to Google/YouTube, their existence as a combined company was not responsible for any infringement that occurs on their business model which existed, and still does exist, on the Internet. Only if a content owner notified them properly, in accordance with a so-called phrase characterized as a ?DMCA Takedown Notice?, could Google/YouTube then act and remove (or block) the infringed content.

The court released over five hundred sixty-three documents of evidence that contained emails, text messages, depositions, white sheets, financial statements, etc. for public consumption. In addition, all arguments, case law, statutes, amici curiae, authorities, and judgments are public record. Viacom provides a majority of these documents on their litigation homepage with additional essays that attempt to explain the law in their favor. However, Viacom still lost the case. Therefore, in actuality these documents portray themselves as a plea for assistance?to find the truth; to find the facts.

This book is the result of reading every document in that case, line-by-line, amid the study of the statutes, case-law, legislative material, non-redacted evidence, and additional facts with the knowledge of computer science, which apparently is lacking with lawyers, judges, and even the US Congress, but certainly not with Google, YouTube and many clones.

Available here are all of the briefs submitted to Viacom's counsel that were created by discovery in the order presented, leading to an amicus curiae equivalent that argues 17 USC § 512(k)(1), the 1998 "service provider" definition inside HR 2281.

QUESTION: Are Google and YouTube really service providers under 17 USC § 512(k)(1)(B)? They claim that they are; however, copyrights are a secured exclusive right, a monopolistic right with trademarks and patents demarcated by Congress under Article 1, Section 8, Clause 8 of the US Constitution. In fact, copyrights are not a third place, runner-up, sacrificial lamb for a new form of free speech that creates environments to "assert other people's speeches" without permission in "bad faith".

The Bible of Digital Copyright Law will find that Google and YouTube are not service providers under 17 USC § 512(k)(1)(A) and/or 17 USC § 512(k)(1)(B). And if a Bible of Digital Copyright Law proves that is true, then how much has actually been stolen from copyright and trademark owners by pressing buttons?

RESOLVED: An argument in digital copyright law. The US 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals reversed that District Court Decision.

COPYRIGHT: Copyright © 2010-2011 ALAN COLOSI. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

Le informazioni nella sezione "Su questo libro" possono far riferimento a edizioni diverse di questo titolo.

Dati bibliografici

Condizione libro: Used

I migliori risultati di ricerca su AbeBooks

1.

Colosi, Alan
ISBN 10: 1467995576 ISBN 13: 9781467995573
Nuovi Quantità: > 20
Print on Demand
Da
Books2Anywhere
(Fairford, GLOS, Regno Unito)
Valutazione libreria
[?]

Descrizione libro 2011. PAP. Condizione libro: New. New Book. Delivered from our UK warehouse in 3 to 5 business days. THIS BOOK IS PRINTED ON DEMAND. Established seller since 2000. Codice libro della libreria IQ-9781467995573

Maggiori informazioni su questa libreria | Fare una domanda alla libreria

Compra nuovo
EUR 19,43
Convertire valuta

Aggiungere al carrello

Spese di spedizione: EUR 10,69
Da: Regno Unito a: U.S.A.
Destinazione, tempi e costi

2.

Alan Colosi
Editore: Createspace Independent Publishing Platform, United States (2011)
ISBN 10: 1467995576 ISBN 13: 9781467995573
Nuovi Paperback Quantità: 10
Print on Demand
Da
The Book Depository
(London, Regno Unito)
Valutazione libreria
[?]

Descrizione libro Createspace Independent Publishing Platform, United States, 2011. Paperback. Condizione libro: New. 226 x 152 mm. Language: English . Brand New Book ***** Print on Demand *****.Viacom and Google have settled this case, as reported on March 18, 2014, a week before oral arguments scheduled in the 2nd Circuit on March 24, 2014. Thank you. Does anyone really think US Copyright Law asserts that a copyright owner has to send Google/YouTube a DMCA TakeDown Notice so that they can infringe you in seconds and then never pay you a nickel after you finally get your content removed? No. On June 23, 2010, the case known as Viacom International, Inc./Paramount Pictures vs. Google, Inc. /YouTube, Inc. (07-cv-02103, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York (Manhattan)) was decided by United States District Judge, Louis L. Stanton. This district level federal case which dragged for three (3) years concerned the infringement and exposition of Viacom s copyrighted content on a public display by YouTube, owned and operated by Google. The public display was-and still is-an immediate worldwide distribution. Viacom asked for $1 billion USD in damages, but Judge Stanton ruled against Viacom and in favor of YouTube. YouTube claimed their business was defined as a service provider under the provision that classifies a service provider inside HR 2281, the law document also known as The Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998 (DMCA). According to Google/YouTube, their existence as a combined company was not responsible for any infringement that occurs on their business model which existed, and still does exist, on the Internet. Only if a content owner notified them properly, in accordance with a so-called phrase characterized as a DMCA Takedown Notice, could Google/YouTube then act and remove (or block) the infringed content. The court released over five hundred sixty-three documents of evidence that contained emails, text messages, depositions, white sheets, financial statements, etc. for public consumption. In addition, all arguments, case law, statutes, amici curiae, authorities, and judgments are public record. Viacom provides a majority of these documents on their litigation homepage with additional essays that attempt to explain the law in their favor. However, Viacom still lost the case. Therefore, in actuality these documents portray themselves as a plea for assistance-to find the truth; to find the facts. This book is the result of reading every document in that case, line-by-line, amid the study of the statutes, case-law, legislative material, non-redacted evidence, and additional facts with the knowledge of computer science, which apparently is lacking with lawyers, judges, and even the US Congress, but certainly not with Google, YouTube and many clones. Available here are all of the briefs submitted to Viacom s counsel that were created by discovery in the order presented, leading to an amicus curiae equivalent that argues 17 USC 512(k)(1), the 1998 service provider definition inside HR 2281. QUESTION: Are Google and YouTube really service providers under 17 USC 512(k)(1)(B)? They claim that they are; however, copyrights are a secured exclusive right, a monopolistic right with trademarks and patents demarcated by Congress under Article 1, Section 8, Clause 8 of the US Constitution. In fact, copyrights are not a third place, runner-up, sacrificial lamb for a new form of free speech that creates environments to assert other people s speeches without permission in bad faith. The Bible of Digital Copyright Law will find that Google and YouTube are not service providers under 17 USC 512(k)(1)(A) and/or 17 USC 512(k)(1)(B). And if a Bible of Digital Copyright Law proves that is true, then how much has actually been stolen from copyright and trademark owners by pressing buttons? RESOLVED: An argument in digital copyright law. The US 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals reversed that District Court Decision. COPYRIGHT: Copyright (c) 2010-2016 ALAN COLOSI. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Codice libro della libreria APC9781467995573

Maggiori informazioni su questa libreria | Fare una domanda alla libreria

Compra nuovo
EUR 25,20
Convertire valuta

Aggiungere al carrello

Spese di spedizione: GRATIS
Da: Regno Unito a: U.S.A.
Destinazione, tempi e costi

3.

Colosi, Alan
ISBN 10: 1467995576 ISBN 13: 9781467995573
Nuovi Quantità: > 20
Print on Demand
Da
PBShop
(Wood Dale, IL, U.S.A.)
Valutazione libreria
[?]

Descrizione libro 2011. PAP. Condizione libro: New. New Book. Shipped from US within 10 to 14 business days. THIS BOOK IS PRINTED ON DEMAND. Established seller since 2000. Codice libro della libreria IQ-9781467995573

Maggiori informazioni su questa libreria | Fare una domanda alla libreria

Compra nuovo
EUR 21,70
Convertire valuta

Aggiungere al carrello

Spese di spedizione: EUR 3,66
In U.S.A.
Destinazione, tempi e costi

4.

Alan Colosi
Editore: Createspace Independent Publishing Platform, United States (2011)
ISBN 10: 1467995576 ISBN 13: 9781467995573
Nuovi Paperback Quantità: 10
Print on Demand
Da
The Book Depository US
(London, Regno Unito)
Valutazione libreria
[?]

Descrizione libro Createspace Independent Publishing Platform, United States, 2011. Paperback. Condizione libro: New. 226 x 152 mm. Language: English . Brand New Book ***** Print on Demand *****. Viacom and Google have settled this case, as reported on March 18, 2014, a week before oral arguments scheduled in the 2nd Circuit on March 24, 2014. Thank you. Does anyone really think US Copyright Law asserts that a copyright owner has to send Google/YouTube a DMCA TakeDown Notice so that they can infringe you in seconds and then never pay you a nickel after you finally get your content removed? No. On June 23, 2010, the case known as Viacom International, Inc./Paramount Pictures vs. Google, Inc. /YouTube, Inc. (07-cv-02103, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York (Manhattan)) was decided by United States District Judge, Louis L. Stanton. This district level federal case which dragged for three (3) years concerned the infringement and exposition of Viacom s copyrighted content on a public display by YouTube, owned and operated by Google. The public display was-and still is-an immediate worldwide distribution. Viacom asked for $1 billion USD in damages, but Judge Stanton ruled against Viacom and in favor of YouTube. YouTube claimed their business was defined as a service provider under the provision that classifies a service provider inside HR 2281, the law document also known as The Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998 (DMCA). According to Google/YouTube, their existence as a combined company was not responsible for any infringement that occurs on their business model which existed, and still does exist, on the Internet. Only if a content owner notified them properly, in accordance with a so-called phrase characterized as a DMCA Takedown Notice, could Google/YouTube then act and remove (or block) the infringed content. The court released over five hundred sixty-three documents of evidence that contained emails, text messages, depositions, white sheets, financial statements, etc. for public consumption. In addition, all arguments, case law, statutes, amici curiae, authorities, and judgments are public record. Viacom provides a majority of these documents on their litigation homepage with additional essays that attempt to explain the law in their favor. However, Viacom still lost the case. Therefore, in actuality these documents portray themselves as a plea for assistance-to find the truth; to find the facts. This book is the result of reading every document in that case, line-by-line, amid the study of the statutes, case-law, legislative material, non-redacted evidence, and additional facts with the knowledge of computer science, which apparently is lacking with lawyers, judges, and even the US Congress, but certainly not with Google, YouTube and many clones. Available here are all of the briefs submitted to Viacom s counsel that were created by discovery in the order presented, leading to an amicus curiae equivalent that argues 17 USC 512(k)(1), the 1998 service provider definition inside HR 2281. QUESTION: Are Google and YouTube really service providers under 17 USC 512(k)(1)(B)? They claim that they are; however, copyrights are a secured exclusive right, a monopolistic right with trademarks and patents demarcated by Congress under Article 1, Section 8, Clause 8 of the US Constitution. In fact, copyrights are not a third place, runner-up, sacrificial lamb for a new form of free speech that creates environments to assert other people s speeches without permission in bad faith. The Bible of Digital Copyright Law will find that Google and YouTube are not service providers under 17 USC 512(k)(1)(A) and/or 17 USC 512(k)(1)(B). And if a Bible of Digital Copyright Law proves that is true, then how much has actually been stolen from copyright and trademark owners by pressing buttons? RESOLVED: An argument in digital copyright law. The US 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals reversed that District Court Decision. COPYRIGHT: Copyright (c) 2010-2016 ALAN COLOSI. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Codice libro della libreria APC9781467995573

Maggiori informazioni su questa libreria | Fare una domanda alla libreria

Compra nuovo
EUR 25,46
Convertire valuta

Aggiungere al carrello

Spese di spedizione: GRATIS
Da: Regno Unito a: U.S.A.
Destinazione, tempi e costi

5.

Colosi, Alan
Editore: CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform (2011)
ISBN 10: 1467995576 ISBN 13: 9781467995573
Nuovi Paperback Quantità: 10
Da
Ergodebooks
(RICHMOND, TX, U.S.A.)
Valutazione libreria
[?]

Descrizione libro CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform, 2011. Paperback. Condizione libro: New. Codice libro della libreria INGM9781467995573

Maggiori informazioni su questa libreria | Fare una domanda alla libreria

Compra nuovo
EUR 22,42
Convertire valuta

Aggiungere al carrello

Spese di spedizione: EUR 3,66
In U.S.A.
Destinazione, tempi e costi

6.

Alan Colosi
Editore: Createspace
ISBN 10: 1467995576 ISBN 13: 9781467995573
Nuovi Paperback Quantità: 20
Print on Demand
Da
BuySomeBooks
(Las Vegas, NV, U.S.A.)
Valutazione libreria
[?]

Descrizione libro Createspace. Paperback. Condizione libro: New. This item is printed on demand. Paperback. 331 pages. Viacom and Google have settled this case, as reported on March 18, 2014, a week before oral arguments scheduled in the 2nd Circuit on March 24, 2014. Thank you. Does anyone really think US Copyright Law asserts that a copyright owner has to send GoogleYouTube a DMCA TakeDown Notice so that they can infringe you in seconds and then never pay you a nickel after you finally get your content removed No. On June 23, 2010, the case known as Viacom International, Inc. Paramount Pictures vs. Google, Inc. YouTube, Inc. (07-cv-02103, U. S. District Court, Southern District of New York (Manhattan)) was decided by United States District Judge, Louis L. Stanton. This district level federal case which dragged for three (3) years concerned the infringement and exposition of Viacoms copyrighted content on a public display by YouTube, owned and operated by Google. The public display wasand still isan immediate worldwide distribution. Viacom asked for 1 billion USD in damages, but Judge Stanton ruled against Viacom and in favor of YouTube. YouTube claimed their business was defined as a service provider under the provision that classifies a service provider inside HR 2281, the law document also known as The Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998 (DMCA). According to GoogleYouTube, their existence as a combined company was not responsible for any infringement that occurs on their business model which existed, and still does exist, on the Internet. Only if a content owner notified them properly, in accordance with a so-called phrase characterized as a DMCA Takedown Notice, could GoogleYouTube then act and remove (or block) the infringed content. The court released over five hundred sixty-three documents of evidence that contained emails, text messages, depositions, white sheets, financial statements, etc. for public consumption. In addition, all arguments, case law, statutes, amici curiae, authorities, and judgments are public record. Viacom provides a majority of these documents on their litigation homepage with additional essays that attempt to explain the law in their favor. However, Viacom still lost the case. Therefore, in actuality these documents portray themselves as a plea for assistanceto find the truth; to find the facts. This book is the result of reading every document in that case, line-by-line, amid the study of the statutes, case-law, legislative material, non-redacted evidence, and additional facts with the knowledge of computer science, which apparently is lacking with lawyers, judges, and even the US Congress, but certainly not with Google, YouTube and many clones. Available here are all of the briefs submitted to Viacoms counsel that were created by discovery in the order presented, leading to an amicus curiae equivalent that argues 17 USC 512(k)(1), the 1998 service provider definition inside HR 2281. QUESTION: Are Google and YouTube really service providers under 17 USC 512(k)(1)(B) They claim that they are; however, copyrights are a secured exclusive right, a monopolistic right with trademarks and patents demarcated by Congress under Article 1, Section 8, Clause 8 of the US Constitution. In fact, copyrights are not a third place, runner-up, sacrificial lamb for a new form of free speech that creates environments to assert other peoples speeches without permission in bad faith. The Bible of Digital Copyright Law will find that Google and YouTube are not service providers under 17 USC 512(k)(1)(A) andor 17 USC 512(k)(1)(B). And if a Bible of Digital Copyright Law proves that is true, then how much has actually been stolen from copyright and trademark owners by pressing buttons RESOLVED: An argument in digital copyright law. COPYRIGHT: Copyright 2010-2011 ALAN COLOSI. ALL RIGHTS RESERVEDADDITIONAL WORKS BY THE AUTHOR: ALAN COLOSI author and creator of The Captain Yuriko Kumage Trilogy novel series, including KKXG: King This item ships from La Vergne,TN. Paperback. Codice libro della libreria 9781467995573

Maggiori informazioni su questa libreria | Fare una domanda alla libreria

Compra nuovo
EUR 22,65
Convertire valuta

Aggiungere al carrello

Spese di spedizione: EUR 3,62
In U.S.A.
Destinazione, tempi e costi

7.

ISBN 10: 1467995576 ISBN 13: 9781467995573
Nuovi Quantità: > 20
Print on Demand
Da
BWB
(Valley Stream, NY, U.S.A.)
Valutazione libreria
[?]

Descrizione libro Condizione libro: New. This item is Print on Demand - Depending on your location, this item may ship from the US or UK. Codice libro della libreria POD_9781467995573

Maggiori informazioni su questa libreria | Fare una domanda alla libreria

Compra nuovo
EUR 27,20
Convertire valuta

Aggiungere al carrello

Spese di spedizione: GRATIS
In U.S.A.
Destinazione, tempi e costi

8.

Alan Colosi
Editore: CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform (2011)
ISBN 10: 1467995576 ISBN 13: 9781467995573
Nuovi Paperback Quantità: 1
Da
Ergodebooks
(RICHMOND, TX, U.S.A.)
Valutazione libreria
[?]

Descrizione libro CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform, 2011. Paperback. Condizione libro: New. Codice libro della libreria DADAX1467995576

Maggiori informazioni su questa libreria | Fare una domanda alla libreria

Compra nuovo
EUR 35,00
Convertire valuta

Aggiungere al carrello

Spese di spedizione: EUR 3,66
In U.S.A.
Destinazione, tempi e costi

9.

Alan Colosi
ISBN 10: 1467995576 ISBN 13: 9781467995573
Nuovi Quantità: 1
Da
Castle Rock
(Pittsford, NY, U.S.A.)
Valutazione libreria
[?]

Descrizione libro Condizione libro: Brand New. Book Condition: Brand New. Codice libro della libreria 97814679955731.0

Maggiori informazioni su questa libreria | Fare una domanda alla libreria

Compra nuovo
EUR 47,03
Convertire valuta

Aggiungere al carrello

Spese di spedizione: EUR 3,66
In U.S.A.
Destinazione, tempi e costi

10.

Alan Colosi
Editore: CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform (2011)
ISBN 10: 1467995576 ISBN 13: 9781467995573
Usato Paperback Quantità: 1
Da
Books Express
(Portsmouth, NH, U.S.A.)
Valutazione libreria
[?]

Descrizione libro CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform, 2011. Paperback. Condizione libro: Good. Ships with Tracking Number! INTERNATIONAL WORLDWIDE Shipping available. May not contain Access Codes or Supplements. Buy with confidence, excellent customer service!. Codice libro della libreria 1467995576

Maggiori informazioni su questa libreria | Fare una domanda alla libreria

Compra usato
EUR 118,80
Convertire valuta

Aggiungere al carrello

Spese di spedizione: GRATIS
In U.S.A.
Destinazione, tempi e costi