Music 2.0 - Exploring Chaos in Digital Music

October 2, 2009

Western Music Piracy in China - the Major Labels’ role

Filed under: Music Industry — maths @ 4:04 pm

Pirate Major

In keeping with the historical flashback highlights accompanying China’s 60th anniversary celebrations, Music2.0 has decided to review recent music industry history in China and the one abiding feature that seems to have been dominant – music piracy. But more intriguingly, we examine how the major labels contributed inadvertently or otherwise to the development of Western music piracy in China by aiding and abetting via sheer ignorance and stupid application of Western business practices without a better understanding of the social, cultural, legal and technological environment at play in the host country.

In The Beginning
“And The Man said, let there be second life”

Western music first took root commercially in China  in the form of unsold and discarded saw-gashed CDs (dakou, in local lingo) from Western markets, very much like a British-empire Australian dumping ground for the dregs of music.

As the major labels themselves were inevitably helping themselves to a buck or two in the short-term by off-loading these unwanted CDs to China in bulk, this had the effect of giving rise to an undefined and random mish-mash of rejected Western music  in China unsupported by any marketing efforts.
As Ed Peto of Outdustry noted, the majors then gave the pirates a suprising headstart…

The arrival of western product in the early 90s came courtesy of ’saw-gashed’ CDs: Excess stock and deleted titles from western majors attempting to avoid taxation and disposal costs. These CDs had their cases cut to mark them as defective and were then shipped in to China through free-market economic ports like Guangzhou, only to end up on the black market. An end result that can be seen as a partial ‘shooting-in-the-foot’ for the western majors who then had to come in and fight against the pirate networks they inadvertently helped set up.

Saw-Gashed CDs

It is indeed damning that with their CD-dumping efforts, the major labels contributed to the proliferation of - and ultimately, development of - powerful and widespread pirate CD networks across China as Chinese businessmen sought to monetize their bulk of surplus CDs purchased by weight.
The existing pirate CD networks in China are now more sophisticated and dwarf the distribution networks of major labels. The major labels cry of blue murder now rings hollow and is akin to certain Western governments decrying the very same terrorists that the CIA themselves used to train whilst handing over sophisticated weapons.

Major label execs have always hidden behind the convenient excuse that piracy alone is to be primarily blamed for the difficulties of breaking Western music in China and the dearth of accompanying revenues, with the secondary charge of the difficulty of marketing Western music in China due to the lack of proper music genre cultivation in China. However, partial blame for the latter situation can be attributed back to the labels via their CD-dumping efforts in the first place.

The Third Shift
If the distribution end of the business was whacked, the start of the process on the production side had its own contribution to a more complete suicide effort by the major labels – the very same recording masters that were used to press legitimate copies were also used for pressing many more pirate copies of CDs  - and it has long been rumoured that some major label execs were either conspirators or simply did not pursue the matter vigilantly enough. It is a fact that the now fashionable digital leak of albums in the West had already been part of the landscape in China in analogue mode for years!

The Internets Phone Home
With the body blow of these actions being self-inflicted, the perfect storm of piracy was consummated in China when the labels’ ignorance of digital led to the more tech savvy but unscrupulous Service Providers and websites across the country blatantly offering ringtones and full-length tracks to consumers with no revenue remitted back to labels and artists. From 2004 to 2005, one celebrated site Kuro even charged users a fee of around US$3 for an all you can eat access from which they reportedly made millions. Eventually Kuro’s parent site in Taiwan was hauled in by the Taiwanese courts with the founders being handed jail sentences.

On the mobile front circa 2004, Chinese mobile Service Providers (SPs) were listing on NASDAQ at high valuations based on revenues from ill-gotten gains on mobile ringtones paid for by end-customers. These SPs managed to initially fleece music publishers as a result of a peculiarity of circumstance in China - with the tight regulation of any form of publishing in China, music publishing inadvertently fell under this purview and music publishers were unable to establish offices easily in China. In their absence, the Service Providers plundered and by the time the music publishers woke up and sought trusted partners or set up satellite companies in China, the Service Providers had already attained a massive user and power base upon which to negotiate labels and publishers down on their terms.

With the proliferation of MIDI ringtones from 2004 to 2005, the major labels looked on in bewilderment as unlike local labels that owned the masters, publishing rights and to a degree, the artists themselves, the major labels did not own the publishing or artist rights and could not get a piece of the MIDI ringtone action. At this point they had yet to understand the significance of the ringback tone market and its revenue potential.
(For readers unfamiliar with how this works, music publishers own the rights to the underlying music compositions i.e. lyrics and music composition. MIDI ringtones only required music publishers rights clearance. Truetones and ringback tones require both music publishing and sound recording rights clearances)

While the digital world passed by the major labels in the first phase, a new phenomena developed where Chinese Internet Artists quickly released songs of moderate production values on the internet for free – to gain fame, with the hope that this would translate into fortune via mobile ringtones. Independent labels quickly caught on and at that point major labels probably only had less than 55% of the market in China.

Pound of Flesh
By the time the major labels in China got their act together, they were demanding huge advances and foolishly insisted on DRM to be implemented for online music, whilst mp3s were de rigueur in China.
To their credit, some major label executives in China quietly ignored head office DRM directives in allowing local websites to distribute Chinese music in mp3 format but held back their blessings on Western music as they were afraid to upset Western artist managers. In those early days, digital rights were not always automatically granted to the major labels by Western artists and their managers, so major label execs decided to take the easy route and not carry much Western music. With Service Providers being staffed by less than music savvy technologists whose only familiarity was with low common denominator and mainstream Chinese music, there was really no effort by major labels to market Western music anyway.

The Great Leveler
But with the internet comes easy access and more Chinese youths became exposed to more Western music as a result of their own individual efforts. In due course, in the absence of legal access to Western music, Chinese sites run by individuals moved into the vacuum in providing free - and illegal – Western music based on random users’ tastes.

If the first wave of Western music CD piracy and the development of the piracy distribution network was partly contributed by the major labels, the second wave in Western music piracy was characterized by the their lack of digital know-how, not to mention their lack of marketing of Western music. Both of these actions not only exacerbated Western music piracy in China, but damningly, the lack of marketing led to a deficient infrastructure and development of Western artists in China.

Granted that the cultural, social, musical and language differences are also a contributory factor for the slow take-up of Western music, with the China-specific situation of the Cultural Revolution and its after-effects creating a huge vacuum in the assimilation of Western music but the commonly cited bogeyman has always been piracy.

God’s Playing Field
Yes, certainly piracy is now affecting the music industry dramatically in China but it is hypocritical for the IFPI to solely blame the Chinese for it as the major labels have to take some responsibility for its development too. Their strategy in China has been too narrowly focused on just legal and governmental actions. It’s all too easy to invoke WTO policies to beat China up, but one has to note that the WTO players can be likened to giants playing chess and trading bits of human livelihood like livestock as part of a gaming strategy for the greater good of their respective nations. WTO debates about morality and intellectual property are simply smoke screens for the preservation of profits of powerful lobby interest groups – see Antigua 1 vs USA 0.

Greed is indeed agnostic and colour blind and it’s too easy to point the finger solely at China - as behind every major online music piracy service in China there lurks opportunist American institutional investors. Baidu is supported by some pretty powerful US institutional investors and both The Register and Seeking Alpha have brought up the question of fraud and lack of due diligence by American investors in their dealings with Baidu.
If the major labels had any shred of moral responsibility left, they would certainly put the brakes on any moves by Qtrax to potentially partner with Baidu in China as recent rumours have been suggesting could be on the cards.

Baidu is probably the world’s biggest large-scale music pirate and even outdoes The Pirate Bay in terms of brazenness as they have been exposed in numerous reports as hosting illegal music files on their server farms. And yet the IFPI and major labels were for so long negligent in being unaware of this aspect of their business. It is thus bewildering to comprehend how the major labels have spent so much futile effort and resources going after grandmothers and teenagers in the US while action against a major pirate like Baidu has been erratic - and they even contrived to lose their legal case against Baidu in 2007, which only served to embolden more pirates in China. Not surprising when one realizes that well-paid global heads of anti-piracy of the major labels sit comfortably in their head offices far away blissfully unaware of the virulent forms of piracy that permeate developing countries.

Baby, Bathwater
As a result of some of their previous mismanagement in China, the major labels have now concluded that piracy is solely to blame and that they have no hope of collecting any payment from individual customers. They have decided that they will give all their music away for free via Google China for a nice little advance payment. Going by their past miscalculations and their poor track record in China, one can only wonder if they are throwing the baby out with the bath water.

If you are a Western artist signed to a major label, you certainly have to ask the question – what good will giving away all that music bring you if Western music is not being marketed by the major labels in China in the first place? It will only serve to devalue music as a whole with no direct benefit to many Western artists. An examination of Western music consumption in China indicates that only a handful of major label Western artists, namely the usual low common denominator suspects like Backstreet Boys and Michael Learns To Rock are benefiting while the rest of Western major label artists languish in obscurity. Western artists should stop buying the party line about piracy and question their major labels on what kind of marketing they have been afforded in China. For many Western artists, obscurity in China has been a greater threat than piracy.

Due Discredit
Though the silver lining is that the internet has enabled a level playing field for independent Western artists and labels who have managed to find a second life in China by making an impression amongst the Chinese, the past inefficiencies of the dinosaur major labels have severely devalued the market as a whole. And this has been to the detriment of most artists in terms of actual monetization while Service Providers, Portals, Search Engines and Carriers rape and pillage.
That there are probably less than 5 legitimate online full-length music download sites in China licensed by the major labels cannot be blamed on piracy only - surely the labels could have done better to create a viable alternative to pirate sites way earlier.
By no means does this review suggest that the majors are the sole authors of music piracy in China, but it is important that their complicit role in the proliferation of Western music piracy in China is documented.

September 15, 2008

The Dark Truth About China’s Baidu

Filed under: Music Industry — maths @ 4:04 pm

Darkwater

One of the claims that Baidu makes is that it is the unwitting search engine that has no means to verify the legality of the music on third party sites it links to, but a new report on The Register shows that Baidu may have a little more to do with it than it lets on.

Where Baidu is infamously known for its illegal mp3 search, the signs are that its shenanigans are darkly extending beyond the music space. A backlash against China’s No.1 search engine, Baidu is brewing on multiple fronts, most of which are a reaction to Baidu’s dubious practices, some of which are illegal and others downright unethical and despicable

With around 70% market share in search in China, Baidu has seemingly actualized the nightmare scenario that others have warned is within Google’s power to unleash with its dominance and influence in the West. Whereas Google is at least guided by its unofficial “Don’t Be Evil” ethos, Baidu in China is unfettered by any such principles.

The Feudal Backlash

Reports in China are revealing that other websites are hitting back at Baidu, and these include heavyweights like Alibaba, Sohu and leading social networks, 51.cm and China’s Facebook clone, Xiaonei who have all announced that they are blocking Baidu from indexing their sites. As Media reports,

“While these portals and social networks assert their decision to block Baidu is based on users’ rights to privacy, analysts say much of their motivation comes from dissatisfaction at Baidu’s domineering web presence.”

Added Paul Denlinger of China Business Strategy,

“I find this excuse a real stretch. Since when has anybody worried about user privacy in China before? What guidelines do they use for protecting user privacy? This sounds much more like a desire to dial back the power of Baidu and its search.”

Whereas sites were willing to tolerate some of Baidu’s machinations, the straw that seemingly broke the proverbial camel’s back was Baidu’s announcement last week of its move into e-commerce and directly challenge not only Alibaba but other players too.

Rose-Tinted News Filter

Already in true Big Brother fashion, Baidu has been known to call up editors of news websites to take down unflattering news reports about it, with the unsaid retribution for non-compliance being a downgrading of news links to said news site on Baidu’s search – which would have disastrous advertising revenue consequences for the news site. Search de-linking of news negative to Baidu has proven to be de rigueur behaviour by Baidu.

And, it has been rumoured that non-subservient sites have been the unfortunate beneficiaries of Denial-of-Service attacks soon after….connect the dots, and the recognized pattern of a street thug manifests.

This clever maneuver and subversion of the truth is why readers and analysts have been unable to more easily find out about Baidu’s dubious modus operandi.

Update 17 Sep 08: More chillingly, the Chinese internet is abuzz with reports that Baidu had suppressed negative news on the developing tainted Sanlu baby milk powder scandal prior to Sep 12 for a purported fee of RMB 3 mil. If indeed, this was true, one shudders to think of the deadly consequences of their actions - however, Baidu itself has released a statement denying this, but their prior cut-throat behaviour of omitting news items certainly clouds the issue of the truth of the matter. It’s not our place to debate this particular incident further but more information on the matter can be gleaned from other search engines. (end of Update)


“Music Search” Fraud via Mysterious Websites?

Mysterious sites
Mysterious websites – Does Baidu Know Where the Bodies are Buried?

Baidu’s rise to power first started with its illegal mp3 search engine which now brings 30%-40% of its entire search traffic. It is on the strength of this habit forming music search activity via Baidu that has not only led to 85% of all Internet users in China accessing music but upon which Baidu draws its traffic and reaps the benefits via advertising – a lucrative move which earned Baidu more than RMB 1 billion in 2007.

Where Baidu’s apologists have stated that it is simply a neutral search engine and it is not their responsibility to figure out if the so-called third party sites they link to are purveying illegal music, a small number of Chinese news sites and The Register report that

“a network of mysterious sites with closely related domain names contributed more than 50 per cent of the search links returned by Baidu. The songs hosted on the mystery sites were unreachable except through the Baidu search engine. Furthermore, infringement notifications resulted in unlicensed songs simply moving from one of these domains to another.

With Baidu’s illegal practice of deep-linking to these mysterious sites, as the screen shot of the process below shows, the user is not even brought to the third party mystery site hosting the illegal music file, and the download action appears superimposed upon the Baidu search window itself.

Deeplinking

This begets the question of why any third party site (mysterious or otherwise) would risk prosecution for hosting illegal music files with no recourse to any revenues from advertising or other means when it can only be accessed via the Baidu mp3 search engine where the only beneficiary of this process seems to be Baidu. That the mysterious sites are actually closely related domains following a pattern and the illegal music files are moved around in an organized manner which as The Register noted,

“reduces Baidu’s administrative cost of policing infringement…Baidu can claim that it has complied with the take-down notice without removing the offending sites from its search index. …The net effect is that the MP3 song file in question is always available on Baidu’s MP3 search engine, despite any number of take-down notices by content owners, and Baidu’s MP3 search users are always gratified - keeping Baidu’s traffic flowing. Whoever the manipulator of these domain names turns out to be, the contents infringes PRC Copyright Law Article 47(1), and the hoster therefore bears direct and primary liability.”

With the common wisdom in the market being that music search engines in China with the exception of Google are actually secretly hosting the mp3 files in question, it is no surprise that the Hebei Copyright Administration and legal authorities finally managed to catch Baidu’s smaller rival music search engine Zhongsou in the act of hosting illegal music files on its servers. Employing laborious investigation to track down the servers and network of domains which were registered under false names of individuals, the copyright authorities had to then seize the evidence against initial ISP resistance.

It all points to a scenario where Baidu is allegedly hosting music files illegally but managing to mask this due to its superior technology proficiency which unfortunately it seems to be channeling into unethical, if not illegal practices. Just last month, Baidu announced that it is using Solid-State Drive storage, to replace its mechanical hard drives and though there are efficiency benefits, it would also serve to mask any incidences of Baidu’s hosting of illegal files. There are also indications that Baidu is actively blocking copyright monitoring agencies URL’s and denying them access from monitoring music search URLs by revising URLs with decoy codes.

Is Google Running Scared From the Truth?
Running Scared
There is every reason to believe that Google China with its undeniable knowledge of the search space knows exactly what is going on with regards to the true state of illegal hosting of files by other music search engines in China but chooses not to publicly state its views. Baidu has already played the nationalistic card once against Google with their campaign of claiming to know the Chinese language and users better than a foreign company like Google. With Google also facing accusations by American activists of collusion with the Chinese government, they are certainly caught between a rock and a hard place, and until they exercise the nuclear option of authoritatively revealing the truth about the illegality of music search engines in China, their recent attempt at introducing a limited legal music search engine is unlikely to change the force of habit of existing Baidu music downloaders.

Exploiting The Den of Thieves

International companies like Motorola, Nokia, Samsung, Lancome, Estee Lauder, Adidas, Puma,  Coca-Cola, Nissan and Nikon who themselves are intellectual property owners and are acutely aware of Baidu’s dubious legally challenged state with regards to music IP but yet they choose the duplicitous route of advertising on Baidu.

These advertisers are blatantly capitalizing on a thieves den and marketing directors of each of these companies are disingenuous if they claim not to realize the infringing nature of the environment which generates the traffic they crave. In certain cases, there is also the situation where the advertisers are averse to making any statements announcing a pullout of display ads from Baidu for fear of Baidu playing the nationalist card against them. Invariably, advertising dollars are certainly feeding the Baidu music piracy beast.

Blood Money
Blood Money
Baidu’s apologists will again claim that there are other Chinese or international companies that likewise cross the line into dubious territory, but Baidu’s chosen path dictates that its practises should be subject to greater scrutiny as The Register points out,

“Baidu’s decision to trade its shares on NASDAQ was a conscious decision to distinguish itself from the scrabble of Chinese internet entrepreneurs. A New York stock listing brings legitimacy - as well as blue chip investment. In turn, this raises questions of due diligence: the JP Morgans are simply investing somebody else’s money. Ironically, a significant portion of Baidu’s institutional shareholders and mutual fund investors are American companies, including blue chip investors such as US investment companies like Morgan Stanley, JP Morgan, Fidelity and Goldman Sachs.”

A reading of Baidu’s quarterly transcripts reveals that investors and analysts have conveniently chosen not to investigate the situation further despite the multiple legal lawsuits, one of which is an outstanding US$ 9 mil case brought on by the IFPI and major labels. With the possibility of fraud by Baidu, the failure by investors to undertake a more thorough due diligence of Baidu’s practices raises the question of negligence and the resulting riches that Baidu’s blood money has brought them, though not quite fully a matter of complicity, does point to a morally deficient but financially beneficial state that their inaction has brought about.

It is also laughable that the US Patents & Trademark Organization (USPTO) in China states that one of its missions is to advise the Chinese government on Chinese laws with regards to intellectual property while looking the other way as American institutional investment holders, mutual fund investors and venture capitalists pour money into and profit from legally suspect companies like Baidu. The US WTO action against China with regards to intellectual property infringements should likewise examine further the role of American financial interests in sustaining the very structures and channels that enable music piracy in China instead of adopting a myopic focus on the symptoms rather than the source.

The perpetuation of investment advice into these type of companies by offshore analysts who do not benefit from on-the ground experience in China and seeing first-hand the realities of dubious practices are doing the market – and truth - a huge disfavor. Neil Portnow, President of NARAS, the organization behind the Grammy awards who was in Beijing last month and after meeting the CEO of Baidu exhibited his limited knowledge on the subject with his pronouncement,

“Authority and impartiality are also the chosen rules by which the Grammies always abide by - Baidu’s Music Charts having wide recognition in the market can truly be called the Chinese Grammy.”

If the NARAS President believes that Baidu exemplifies impartiality at the level of the Grammies, then it certainly does not bode well for the Grammies’ reputation.
Rick Aristotle Munarriz of The Motley Fool especially would also do well to temper his enthusiasm of Baidu with a closer examination of the facts and realize that Baidu is not only not a neutral search engine but also loses legal immunity via its actions. The question that these investors and analysts should be asking and investigating is “who owns these mysterious music websites that Baidu is conveniently indexing and linking to?”

Update 18 Sep 08: David Wolf of Silicon Hutong/ Seeking Alph offers up some very sound advice for evaluation of partner companies in his posts “Being the Change: The Ethics of Baidu” and Baidu Report Raises Important Ethical Questions,

“At what point, we need to ask, does it become unethical to deal with a company that appears to be actively violating the law? Do you take a zero-tolerance approach? Do you wait for a criminal indictment? Do you do your own due-diligence? Or do you simply shrug your shoulders and say “I really don’t care what kind of people I do business with, as long as my company makes out on the deal?
These are not easy questions, but they are an example of the kind of issues a company needs to deal with in advance of doing business in China, or failing that, right now.” (end of Update)

The Last Post
The Last Post
With a looming war between Baidu and Alibaba, and also the escalation of Google vs Baidu on the music search front, it is inevitable that Baidu will be playing dirty, but for a NASDAQ-listed company that counts Morgan Stanley and Fidelity as its mutual fund investor and shareholder, it needs to clean up some of its more dubious practices especially with regards to profiteering from its illegal music activities.

One of Baidu’s more successful services has been “Baidu Zhidao” (Baidu Knows) and in keeping with the spirit of the service, it knows where the bodies are buried which we can only call ‘mysterious websites’ – the question is, does the trail of blood lead back to Baidu?

Disclosure: Maths’ involvement with Baidu lies bleeding in an unmarked grave on an unknown mystery site

Required Reading:

  1. China’s Nonstop Music Machine- The Register
  2. Baidu’s Deeplinking To Mysterious Sites, Who Owns Them - OneTwo Music
  3. Baidu’s Ploy To Divide & Conquer Labels in China - Music2.0
  4. IFPI Wrongly Blames Chinese Law for Baidu Loss But Wins Yahoo Case - Music2.0
  5. Being The Change: The Ethics of Baidu - Silicon Hutong
  6. Kidney Stone Gate: Baidu Denies Censoring Search Results - chinaSMACK

Credits:
All Images by Ghostbones except for Thirty Pieces of Silver courtesy of Devil To Pay

August 26, 2008

Whole Lotta Music Censorship by Great Britain in China Shock!

Filed under: Music Industry — maths @ 3:36 am

UnWhole Lotta Love

As the flame from the glowing beacon of communism in China was put out on Sunday, the abhorrent censorship practised by the hegemenous Great British empire reared its ugly head even before the Olympics has reached Brown British soil.

As part of the 8-minute segment accorded to The Great Britain’s London Olympics during the closing ceremony of the Beijing Olympics, overzealous and partisan organizers tried their best to present The Great Britain in a more positive light to counter accusations of repression during its continuing 500-year rule over long-suffering lands. The Great Britain, which had for a long time closed up the borders of its empire, which roughly spanned half the known world is attempting to use the Olympics to open up beyond the Hadrian’s Wall. After centuries of laddish-level intellect amongst the serfs and peasants brought about by the debilitating effects of the Agricultural Revolution, the counter-revolutionary Brown Guards effected the Education Revolution starting from 1966 when millions of drunks, druggie peaceniks, football hooligans and tramps were sent to Oxford and Cambridge to be educated aganst their will. 1966 is also celebrated by the party cadre as the birthdate of the Brain of Britain established to propagate education as the opium of the masses.

As a prelude to its coming out party in 2012, The Great British Olympic Ministry pulled off a shock selection in Beijing with suspected Battle of Britain German sympathiser Jimmy Page planted in the role of guitar-playing bus conductor. Page has rarely been seen in public since his anthemic “Whole Lotta Love” was used by protesting students demanding freedom from education during the violent crackdown by the counter-revolutionary Brown Guards at Trafalgar Square in 1979 as part of the so-called “The Wall” riots. The Olympic Ministry (which also acts as the Propaganda Ministry) was intent on making a public spectacle of Page as they neutered “Whole Lotta Love” by first removing an inch, and then a mile by obliterating the entire third verse. To complete the humiliation, Page was paired with Brain of Britain dropout Leona Lewis whose only qualification to sing the song was that she could just about wear the pants on the shortened bit that Percy would otherwise have had to go to great lengths to pull off.

In true fashion, the 3rd verse celebrating the right to procreate or thereof was censored - which the more populous Communist countries like China obviously have greater freedom to enjoy - and human rights observers suspect that this was carried out by the dreaded Great Censor of Britain and government owned station, BBC Radio 1. At the same time, we are still checking slow-motion video replays and search engine cache documents for proof of the state-run organ, the BBC’s Top of the Pops Lip-Synching Department’s involvement in Leona Lewis’performance.

In order to match the splendour of communist China’s magnificent Olympic ceremony, The Great Britain’s Olympic Ministry dumped initial director choice Steven Spielberg at the last minute for his suggestion of the use of a little yellow taxi entrance into the Bird’s Nest stadium. Instead, The Great London Bus being slightly bigger was sent in as a show of strength to impress Rows 1-23 of the North Stand of the Bird’s Nest before it transformed into an 80’s style Rose Parade float. Michael Bay, has already issued an official denial that despite the attempted similarity to his Transformers movie he was absolutely not involved and it is rumoured that he will refrain from any involvement with The Great Britain until Ireland is free. The London segment carried on with sinister Riefenstahl overtones with the use of oppressive umbrellas symbolising the tyranny of the English weather which the all powerful Great British government controls.

Censorship, lip-synching and demonstrations of weather control are just some of the portentous manifestations that The Great Britain exhibited in just an 8-minute segment. How much more oppressive democratic control do we need to experience before we call for a boycott of the London Olympics? London’s cadre representative of The Great Leader of The Great Britain, Boris Johnson ominously promised everyone a “big party” in 2012 as long as they joined the ruling party.

London was awarded the Olympic Games after promises to the IOC that it will allow greater communistic freedom to its citizens which we all ulimately hope will lead to the adoption of communism and freedom of Northern Ireland, Wales, Scotland, Falklands, Gibraltar, St Helena and Ascension Island, Tristan da Cunha, Pitcairn Island, Anguilla, Antarctic Territory, Bermuda, British Indian Ocean Territory, British Virgin Islands, Cayman Islands, Montserrat, Pitcairn Islands, South Georgia & South Sandwich Islands, Turks & Caicos Islands, Bradford and other oppressed parts of the empire.

The Great Britain has announced that it will reduce democratic controls and promises greater communist freedom to its citizens by 2012. Ping Pong is indeed coming home!

Next Page »

Copyright © maths

Powered by WordPress