The CFO survey said it is happening to 1 in 5 US corporations, which is incredible if you think about it - but the trouble is the scale is larger than that, when you include what they steal via surveillance too.
I can't see an answer outside of decoupling, seeing as they're set on their path and proud of it.
Sounds impressive, then you read the article and realize they surveyed 23 companies in total. I don’t even know what’s 1 in 5 in that context. Four? Five?
Honestly are you really surprised? It's been going on for almost 40 years. Any exec saying they're surprised by this is disingenous at best, and lying at worst. If an exec sees a 40 year long pattern and decides to continue working with China, they're either incompetent or deciding that the potential profits are worth it.
To turn around and act surprised by this is like acting surprised that Trump keeps saying inflammatory things.
The article gives several possible ways to improve the situation. However, one critical way is missing imho: China forces foreign investment to always come in the form of a joint venture with a Chinese company. This practice needs to be forbidden or heavily penalized in all future trade agreements and similar international contracts.
Chinese citizens have invested a ton in US businesses, which is sort of okay. They also bought a ton of land in the US, which led to skyrocketing housing prices, and in the long term, if it continues unabated, will lead to the US paying tribute to China in the form of rents on US land. There is no upside to this. We got cheap Chinese plastic trinkets. They got our real estate. Didn't we do this to the indigenous people here once ourselves?
To be clear: I'm not opposed to being able to buy foreign land per se, but I am opposed to how one-sided this is. For the most part, US entities can't really own real estate in China (and even with Chinese entities, it's complex, but that's another story).
Forbidding that practice will simply mean that you won't be doing any more business in China. Which is fine with me. It's just that CEOs that see a virgin population of over a billion consumers for their widgets can't help themselves and will agree to just about anything to be able to tap that market before their competition does.
I just learned that Tesla in China does not have a local partner. Which surprised me.
Was Tesla an exception? Are there others?
Regardless, I'm absolutely certain that China is exfiltrating every morsel of IP. As state policy. It's what they do.
The only interesting wrinkle to me is that Elon Musk is probably okay with the knowledge transfer. A man on a mission. Whatever it takes to get humanity carbon neutral asap.
--
I'm fine with developing economies doing their thing. The notion was to nurture the BRICS countries, allow them to mature, not crush them in their cribs.
No one can argue today that China remains a developing economy. We're past time for realpolitik.
Flip the script: we may want this sort of thing to be happening more, not less, on a global scale. When we want to help developing countries, this is one of the most effective ways to do so. We should just be smart and restrict this to more-values-aligned, more-development-left-to-do countries like India, Rwanda, etc.
It seems he fell into a classic trap, the Chinese partner never intended to make cars, as the only product they ever produced is a Smart-like "mini-four-wheel-car", which was itself stolen from an HK student design.
So the plan is quite apparent, the Chinese partner just wanted his reputation and brand recognition, in exchange for promised access to the China market, to leverage huge land quota (state controlled lucrative resource, highly coveted) and bank/government loans. It never planed to make any real cars, it's just a capital play to game and profit off of the system, like pennies for grands.
Honestly I don't have much problem with protectionism. Flagrant theft is no good, but when the companies enter in the domestic partnership the IP transfer is rather more de jure. And if China didn't take any IP they would continue to be massively under-developed and just a source of cheap labor, be cause there's no way in hell US companies would have willingly fostered higher skills, higher pay there.
Let's face it, major US companies that outsource to China are doing fine, at least compared to workers, and we shouldn't start fucking WW III to raise their profits further.
What's far more concerning to me is what is described in https://phenomenalworld.org/reviews/trade-wars, the general race-to-the-bottom export dynamics where every country surpresses wages to try to stay competitive, and via the paradox of thrift not enough consumption has been afforded. This will ruin us. And we see the race to the bottom politically too, which follows.
That book says bilateral tarries are a farce because commerce can route around them. As a programmer that makes....goddamn sense. They instead recommend general capital controls, which cannot be routed around. That also makes sense.
How about we fix our rotten economy, reinvigorate society, and win a cultural war rather than loose a real one?
> And if China didn't take any IP they would continue to be massively under-developed and just a source of cheap labor, be cause there's no way in hell US companies would have willingly fostered higher skills, higher pay there.
We sell the training for those skills to anyone willing to pay as part of a huge education industry. You can just buy the textbooks on amazon or get many of them along with any other materials for free.
Smaller countries in the west who couldn't possibly stand up the the big "bully" economies, and less developed regions like the US south, all have developed right up the cutting-edge with everyone else. They became developed by simply playing the game according to the rules. The real problem with developing countries is the ability tofollow those rules. The culture isn't fully-formed yet and some people are unclear on the line between stealing/scamming versus legitimate business. That doesn't mean stealing and scamming are a necessary part of development. It's the corruption that holds it back. Economic growth is based on people taking risks and making deals, which needs security and trust between them.
For some reason, after reading this article and a bunch of the comments here, I'm reminded of two quotes from two of my favorite authors:
"Standards of living far below what we would consider to be poverty have been the norm for untold thousands of years. It is not the origins of poverty which need to be explained, since the human species began in poverty. What requires explaining are the things that created and sustained higher standards of living."
from Wealth, Poverty and Politics by Thomas Sowell
"Modernity needs to understand that being rich and becoming rich are not mathematically, personally, socially, and ethically the same thing."
from The Bed of Procrustes: Philosophical and Practical Aphorisms by Nassim Nicholas Taleb
Personally I no longer support the concept of IP. Reason being that if it was enforced to the letter nobody except largest corps can't make a single thing now without breaking some patent and sued to the oblivion. As for software patents, this is just cherry on a cake of insult.
I bet there is not a single software product out there that does not break some patent.
There are two sides of the story, there is a Chinese version saying that there are a lots of frauds here.
Car making is a capital burning business, you just can not do it without the wealth like elon musk.
It's kind of a venture investment here, there were so many car investment in the past few years, when there were investment bubbles, but now, the bubble is gone.
I've read in a paper somewhere that a big part of why Chinese auto manufacturers aren't as successful as Japanese or Korean ones is because they're too tied to the local government to fail. Each province in China has their own local auto company connected to the provincial government, resulting in a lot of duplicated effort and inefficiency. Japan and Korea had a lot of indigenous auto makers when they first started as well, but they allowed the weaker ones to get bought out and cannibalized to build up the stronger ones.
Well, they did promise to cut costs to 1/3 of the German version, but they didn’t actually build it:
“Originally planned to be ready for Expo 2010, the controversial project was repeatedly delayed, with final approval being granted on August 18, 2008.”
“[...] In March 2009, the project was reported to be "suspended", although it had not been officially cancelled. The October 26, 2010 opening of the Shanghai–Hangzhou high-speed railway makes construction of this line unlikely.”
Reading further: “The prototype didn't run at 600 km/h, but at a much lower speed as an operational debugging test.”
And then:
“According to CRRC, by the end of 2020, five high-speed maglev test vehicles will be rolled off the production line. Besides, a whole engineering system of the 600 km/h high-speed maglev prototype will be completed, which signifies China will master a whole set of the technology and engineering capability by that time.”
“[...] China aims to put a 500-km-long high-speed maglev line into commercial use by 2025.”
“[...] Using German technology, the Shanghai maglev line is a demonstration line. Since then, China has been striving to develop its independent technology in the field, where Japan and Germany have been taking leading positions.”
“Step by step, the country is making solid progress. Analysts say that the successful test on Sunday signifies that China has achieved the same level as Japan.”
at the very least we should be honest and admit that it's all about being continuously paid for things we already finished doing (sometimes even generations ago).
but I am pretty sure that it will have to get worse, far worse, so bad that a Kafka seems tame before people get convinced that ownership over language is stupid.
The other way to look at it is to recognize that it is hard to invent and prove the value of something, but easy to copy and pollute once that is done. We are all familiar with unfortunate examples of this.
And yes, copyright extension, yadda yadda, but no one is being forced to enjoy, for instance, Mickey Mouse. That they do, and it endures and retains value- why is the creator not entitled to protect it as an asset for as long as people value it?
And regarding the Kafka reference, the story of his stories is itself enlightening on this subject. We only have them, and the utility of the reference, through the protective actions of his friend. Were there no Intellectual Property, they would have been burned after his death.
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries
"How can politicians look into TV cameras and say we have a free market system when patents guarantee monopoly incomes for twenty years, preventing anyone from competing? How can they claim there are free markets when copyright rules give a guaranteed income for seventy years after a person’s death? How can they claim free markets exist when one person or company is given a subsidy and not others, or when they sell off the commons that belong to all of us, at a discount, to a favoured individual or company, or when Uber, TaskRabbit and their ilk act as unregulated labour brokers, profiting from the labour of others?"
- Professor Guy Standing
also:
1. The current political economy is based on a false idea of material abundance.
We call it pseudo-abundance. It is based on a commitment to permanent growth, the infinite accumulation of capital and debt-driven dynamics through compound interest. This is unsustainable, of course, because infinite growth is logically and physically impossible in any physically constrained, finite system.
2. The current political economy is based on a false idea of “immaterial scarcity.”
It believes that an exaggerated set of intellectual property monopolies—for copyrights, trademarks and patents—should restrain the sharing of scientific, social and economic innovations. Hence the system discourages human cooperation, excludes many people from benefiting from innovation and slows the collective learning of humanity. In an age of grave global challenges, the political economy keeps many practical alternatives sequestered behind private firewalls or unfunded if they cannot generate adequate profits."
This happen to be a well-reported news on the Chinese internet where I was able to find more details. And the author's own claims are dubious and sketchy. It was never a three way deal, he may have deals with a Chinese company that owns share. That maybe why he said it's a threeway deal, but it's two two-way deals. He never made any deal with Chinese officials, but another Chinese business owner who made the deal with the government. The fact he didn't say is that the company was in debt and bankrupted, whose employees are still trying to get paid for their work.
Another claim he make is that the local government did fulfill their monetary investment. The author said the money that the local government gave was not 'nearly enough', which is impossibly large tax-payer money, to build streamlined car production, but both parties agree to the deal in the beginning, it was the expectation. And the investor would of course, expect the invested to deliver the said product with said investment, which, as the author said, didn't happen.
What's more. There is an whisleblower within the company who work in the accounting department shared with the public on open internet months ago that the non-investing shareholders of the company who didn't put in any money, instead intellectual properties, take mortgage out of their shares, which would be unacceptable in most investment scenario because unless the patents are sold, it's outright stealing from the investing shareholder who put in actual money especially so when the final product weren't made and sold. The accountant told the public that those patents are bought with 2.2 million US dollar but were valued as 100 million, and 'technologies' that were included in the valuation are yet to be perfected, that can't be used in production.
This rant piece is nothing more than a shameful attempt to exploit American sentiment on Chinese 'property theft' trying to sway an on-going court judgement to the author's private financial interest.
If there are any wrong-doings should be left with the court to decide, but there are enough ground for an investigation to be launched, or at least, for the investor to be angry. If the author actually ran an successful operation, I would feel sorry for him, the evaluation issues won't be a problem, but that simply wasn't the case. It is a catastrophic waste of public money for a failed venture of the author and his partners.
I can not attest to if the author is making those claims unaware of those problems that he himself is also cheated by the other party, which is the Chinese company who mortgaged their shares and actually owns the patents. That company bought the company the author originally founded in the US, leading the private Chinese companies to own the author's patents.
I'd say the Chinese government is the fool in this scenario.
Author is an extremely successful businessman and inventor with something like 30+ years of track record running business in US without defrauding anyone.
The real question here is: Is it getting better? For example Alibaba is putting a lot of effort into combating fraud (I.e. fake products) on its platform. The Chinese government also made serious moves. Does IP theft exist and is it serious? For sure. Is it getting better? Probably yes. Does being in an election year help to have realistic reporting on this issue? Probably not. And BTW have a look at how Japan grew in the 60s and 70s.
Not really off tangent: I won't be surprised if this attracts lots of comments along the lines "US/ WESTERN COUNTRIES did this before too and therefore no better than China".
I just can't understand why when it comes to geopolitics, HN just can't keep the discussion related to the submission? Somehow US/ western countries have to enter the discussion as a bad benchmark...
America stole Britain's intellectual property for a leg up a century or two ago, now a different country is doing it to them.
It's just the normal cycle, and America have long had a lot of artificial legal protections in place to try and stop it and limit the rest of the world's prosperity.
The harsh copyright laws and IP agreements they've bullied the rest of the world into accepting are beginning to fail, and these sort of articles are a direct consequence of that, why wouldn't we discuss it? It's an intellectually interesting effect.
There's also the other question of is it really stealing? America still has the knowledge, after all. Copyright laws were supposed to encourage innovation, but as many here have argued, have gone too far, what's the surprise now a country has enough power to say No to America, they're saying No.
China only recognizes patents applied for and granted by the China patent system. I believe you engaged a Chinese company to handle the JV. I worked in China 8 years. The amount of obfuscation and outright theft is beyond comprehension.
This is sad but true. There are some very interesting channels on youtube made by westerners who live in, or used to, China e.g. Serpentza. Some of them are quite eye-opening, especially more recent ones from when the CCP decided having foreigners in China is a bad thing. The videos from years ago were quite positive, but honest, generally about China. Not any more.
>A final example is how they have multiplied the price of masks during the COVID-19 period
This is despicable, shame on China companies that copied the american values of greed and increasing prices of medicine (like insulin) or auctioning PPE materials.
[+] [-] Wolfenstein98k|5 years ago|reply
The CFO survey said it is happening to 1 in 5 US corporations, which is incredible if you think about it - but the trouble is the scale is larger than that, when you include what they steal via surveillance too.
I can't see an answer outside of decoupling, seeing as they're set on their path and proud of it.
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/02/28/1-in-5-companies-say-china-s...
[+] [-] oefrha|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Spooky23|5 years ago|reply
How come the Feds will prosecute bribery form foreign officials, but not the CEO or COO allowing corporate property to be stolen?
[+] [-] Thorncorona|5 years ago|reply
To turn around and act surprised by this is like acting surprised that Trump keeps saying inflammatory things.
[+] [-] matz1|5 years ago|reply
Maybe stop relying on IP as your business strategy ? Always be innovating so that you always be one step ahead those who copying.
[+] [-] corty|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] murgindrag|5 years ago|reply
Chinese citizens have invested a ton in US businesses, which is sort of okay. They also bought a ton of land in the US, which led to skyrocketing housing prices, and in the long term, if it continues unabated, will lead to the US paying tribute to China in the form of rents on US land. There is no upside to this. We got cheap Chinese plastic trinkets. They got our real estate. Didn't we do this to the indigenous people here once ourselves?
To be clear: I'm not opposed to being able to buy foreign land per se, but I am opposed to how one-sided this is. For the most part, US entities can't really own real estate in China (and even with Chinese entities, it's complex, but that's another story).
[+] [-] jacquesm|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] specialist|5 years ago|reply
Was Tesla an exception? Are there others?
Regardless, I'm absolutely certain that China is exfiltrating every morsel of IP. As state policy. It's what they do.
The only interesting wrinkle to me is that Elon Musk is probably okay with the knowledge transfer. A man on a mission. Whatever it takes to get humanity carbon neutral asap.
--
I'm fine with developing economies doing their thing. The notion was to nurture the BRICS countries, allow them to mature, not crush them in their cribs.
No one can argue today that China remains a developing economy. We're past time for realpolitik.
[+] [-] chrchang523|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] contingencies|5 years ago|reply
No. This is not just plain wrong, it is normally not the case. See WFOE comment.
[+] [-] xmly|5 years ago|reply
Apple, Tesla and numerous other US companies are 100% foreign entity in China.
For hybrid, the usual cases are that they want to get government subsidies or special tax incentives.
[+] [-] xmly|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] balola|5 years ago|reply
So the plan is quite apparent, the Chinese partner just wanted his reputation and brand recognition, in exchange for promised access to the China market, to leverage huge land quota (state controlled lucrative resource, highly coveted) and bank/government loans. It never planed to make any real cars, it's just a capital play to game and profit off of the system, like pennies for grands.
[+] [-] zhikanbumai|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Ericson2314|5 years ago|reply
Let's face it, major US companies that outsource to China are doing fine, at least compared to workers, and we shouldn't start fucking WW III to raise their profits further.
What's far more concerning to me is what is described in https://phenomenalworld.org/reviews/trade-wars, the general race-to-the-bottom export dynamics where every country surpresses wages to try to stay competitive, and via the paradox of thrift not enough consumption has been afforded. This will ruin us. And we see the race to the bottom politically too, which follows.
That book says bilateral tarries are a farce because commerce can route around them. As a programmer that makes....goddamn sense. They instead recommend general capital controls, which cannot be routed around. That also makes sense.
How about we fix our rotten economy, reinvigorate society, and win a cultural war rather than loose a real one?
[+] [-] unishark|5 years ago|reply
We sell the training for those skills to anyone willing to pay as part of a huge education industry. You can just buy the textbooks on amazon or get many of them along with any other materials for free.
Smaller countries in the west who couldn't possibly stand up the the big "bully" economies, and less developed regions like the US south, all have developed right up the cutting-edge with everyone else. They became developed by simply playing the game according to the rules. The real problem with developing countries is the ability tofollow those rules. The culture isn't fully-formed yet and some people are unclear on the line between stealing/scamming versus legitimate business. That doesn't mean stealing and scamming are a necessary part of development. It's the corruption that holds it back. Economic growth is based on people taking risks and making deals, which needs security and trust between them.
[+] [-] jkhdigital|5 years ago|reply
"Standards of living far below what we would consider to be poverty have been the norm for untold thousands of years. It is not the origins of poverty which need to be explained, since the human species began in poverty. What requires explaining are the things that created and sustained higher standards of living."
from Wealth, Poverty and Politics by Thomas Sowell
"Modernity needs to understand that being rich and becoming rich are not mathematically, personally, socially, and ethically the same thing."
from The Bed of Procrustes: Philosophical and Practical Aphorisms by Nassim Nicholas Taleb
[+] [-] neonate|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] FpUser|5 years ago|reply
I bet there is not a single software product out there that does not break some patent.
[+] [-] alloai|5 years ago|reply
Car making is a capital burning business, you just can not do it without the wealth like elon musk.
It's kind of a venture investment here, there were so many car investment in the past few years, when there were investment bubbles, but now, the bubble is gone.
[+] [-] magicsmoke|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] de6u99er|5 years ago|reply
https://www.dw.com/en/china-masters-german-train-technology-...
[+] [-] AlbertoGP|5 years ago|reply
“Originally planned to be ready for Expo 2010, the controversial project was repeatedly delayed, with final approval being granted on August 18, 2008.”
“[...] In March 2009, the project was reported to be "suspended", although it had not been officially cancelled. The October 26, 2010 opening of the Shanghai–Hangzhou high-speed railway makes construction of this line unlikely.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shanghai%E2%80%93Hangzhou_magl...
But they keep promising it:
Title: “China's 600 km/h high-speed maglev prototype completes successful trial run”
Reading further: “The prototype didn't run at 600 km/h, but at a much lower speed as an operational debugging test.”
And then: “According to CRRC, by the end of 2020, five high-speed maglev test vehicles will be rolled off the production line. Besides, a whole engineering system of the 600 km/h high-speed maglev prototype will be completed, which signifies China will master a whole set of the technology and engineering capability by that time.”
“[...] China aims to put a 500-km-long high-speed maglev line into commercial use by 2025.”
“[...] Using German technology, the Shanghai maglev line is a demonstration line. Since then, China has been striving to develop its independent technology in the field, where Japan and Germany have been taking leading positions.”
“Step by step, the country is making solid progress. Analysts say that the successful test on Sunday signifies that China has achieved the same level as Japan.”
https://news.cgtn.com/news/2020-06-21/China-s-600-km-h-high-...
[+] [-] naringas|5 years ago|reply
at the very least we should be honest and admit that it's all about being continuously paid for things we already finished doing (sometimes even generations ago).
but I am pretty sure that it will have to get worse, far worse, so bad that a Kafka seems tame before people get convinced that ownership over language is stupid.
[+] [-] jonahbenton|5 years ago|reply
And yes, copyright extension, yadda yadda, but no one is being forced to enjoy, for instance, Mickey Mouse. That they do, and it endures and retains value- why is the creator not entitled to protect it as an asset for as long as people value it?
And regarding the Kafka reference, the story of his stories is itself enlightening on this subject. We only have them, and the utility of the reference, through the protective actions of his friend. Were there no Intellectual Property, they would have been burned after his death.
Cheers.
[+] [-] TazeTSchnitzel|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|5 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] worlddan|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] warmcat|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] krak12|5 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] bergstromm466|5 years ago|reply
- Professor Guy Standing
also:
1. The current political economy is based on a false idea of material abundance.
We call it pseudo-abundance. It is based on a commitment to permanent growth, the infinite accumulation of capital and debt-driven dynamics through compound interest. This is unsustainable, of course, because infinite growth is logically and physically impossible in any physically constrained, finite system.
2. The current political economy is based on a false idea of “immaterial scarcity.”
It believes that an exaggerated set of intellectual property monopolies—for copyrights, trademarks and patents—should restrain the sharing of scientific, social and economic innovations. Hence the system discourages human cooperation, excludes many people from benefiting from innovation and slows the collective learning of humanity. In an age of grave global challenges, the political economy keeps many practical alternatives sequestered behind private firewalls or unfunded if they cannot generate adequate profits."
- By Michel Bauwens, Franco Iacomella
[+] [-] beaunative|5 years ago|reply
What's more. There is an whisleblower within the company who work in the accounting department shared with the public on open internet months ago that the non-investing shareholders of the company who didn't put in any money, instead intellectual properties, take mortgage out of their shares, which would be unacceptable in most investment scenario because unless the patents are sold, it's outright stealing from the investing shareholder who put in actual money especially so when the final product weren't made and sold. The accountant told the public that those patents are bought with 2.2 million US dollar but were valued as 100 million, and 'technologies' that were included in the valuation are yet to be perfected, that can't be used in production.
This rant piece is nothing more than a shameful attempt to exploit American sentiment on Chinese 'property theft' trying to sway an on-going court judgement to the author's private financial interest.
If there are any wrong-doings should be left with the court to decide, but there are enough ground for an investigation to be launched, or at least, for the investor to be angry. If the author actually ran an successful operation, I would feel sorry for him, the evaluation issues won't be a problem, but that simply wasn't the case. It is a catastrophic waste of public money for a failed venture of the author and his partners.
I can not attest to if the author is making those claims unaware of those problems that he himself is also cheated by the other party, which is the Chinese company who mortgaged their shares and actually owns the patents. That company bought the company the author originally founded in the US, leading the private Chinese companies to own the author's patents.
I'd say the Chinese government is the fool in this scenario.
[+] [-] tlear|5 years ago|reply
I will believe him over PRC propaganda any time.
[+] [-] wil421|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] oger|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] a0-prw|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nsoonhui|5 years ago|reply
I just can't understand why when it comes to geopolitics, HN just can't keep the discussion related to the submission? Somehow US/ western countries have to enter the discussion as a bad benchmark...
[+] [-] mattmanser|5 years ago|reply
America stole Britain's intellectual property for a leg up a century or two ago, now a different country is doing it to them.
It's just the normal cycle, and America have long had a lot of artificial legal protections in place to try and stop it and limit the rest of the world's prosperity.
The harsh copyright laws and IP agreements they've bullied the rest of the world into accepting are beginning to fail, and these sort of articles are a direct consequence of that, why wouldn't we discuss it? It's an intellectually interesting effect.
There's also the other question of is it really stealing? America still has the knowledge, after all. Copyright laws were supposed to encourage innovation, but as many here have argued, have gone too far, what's the surprise now a country has enough power to say No to America, they're saying No.
[+] [-] spectre8|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kdemy|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] justinclift|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] throwayws|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] croutonwagon|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] hummel|5 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] secondcoming|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] simion314|5 years ago|reply
This is despicable, shame on China companies that copied the american values of greed and increasing prices of medicine (like insulin) or auctioning PPE materials.
[+] [-] rayuela|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] RhysU|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] fxtentacle|5 years ago|reply