paulrobertwagner - Posted - 08/26/2011:  06:37:45

online.wsj.com/article/SB10001...3268.html

Edited by - paulrobertwagner on 08/26/2011 06:39:18

Steven M - Posted - 08/26/2011:  06:40:36

banjohangout.org/topic/214175/#2710935

Edited by - banjomikey on 08/26/2011 06:49:38

paulrobertwagner - Posted - 08/26/2011:  06:47:13

Wow!  Looks like the Hangout is ahead of The Drudge Report.  Whodathunk?

Steven M - Posted - 08/26/2011:  06:48:12

Its raining and I'm bored :(

Richard Dress - Posted - 08/26/2011:  08:56:32

It's only a business.  The government would never go after privately held vintage instruments, would they?  We don't have to worry.

minstrelmike - Posted - 08/26/2011:  11:10:39

The title of the article is: 

Guitar Frets: Environmental Enforcement Leaves Musicians in Fear

excerpt: If you are the lucky owner of a 1920s Martin guitar, it may well be made, in part, of Brazilian rosewood. Cross an international border with an instrument made of that now-restricted wood, and you better have correct and complete documentation proving the age of the instrument. Otherwise, you could lose it to a zealous customs agent—not to mention face fines and prosecution.

John Thomas, a law professor at Quinnipiac University and a blues and ragtime guitarist, says "there's a lot of anxiety, and it's well justified." Once upon a time, he would have taken one of his vintage guitars on his travels. Now, "I don't go out of the country with a wooden guitar."

The tangled intersection of international laws is enforced through a thicket of paperwork. Recent revisions to 1900's Lacey Act require that anyone crossing the U.S. border declare every bit of flora or fauna being brought into the country. One is under "strict liability" to fill out the paperwork—and without any mistakes.

It's not enough to know that the body of your old guitar is made of spruce and maple: What's the bridge made of? If it's ebony, do you have the paperwork to show when and where that wood was harvested and when and where it was made into a bridge? Is the nut holding the strings at the guitar's headstock bone, or could it be ivory? "Even if you have no knowledge—despite Herculean efforts to obtain it—that some piece of your guitar, no matter how small, was obtained illegally, you lose your guitar forever," Prof. Thomas has written. "Oh, and you'll be fined $250 for that false (or missing) information in your Lacey Act Import Declaration."

....

Klondike Waldo - Posted - 08/26/2011:  13:18:05

We pipers have had issues with ivory-mounted pipes for years. You can apply for a CITES certifiicate if you'll be traveling internationally.   None of my bagpipes have genuine ivory and the oldest of them has that distinct pumpkin/sweet potato look of aged catalin.

mvolcjak - Posted - 08/26/2011:  22:56:38

Well I see 2 topics related to this have already been locked by the moderators  - due to this being too political..

Of course this is "political", since "politicians" enacted this stupid legislation.  There was some relevant and interesting (and non-political ) information on the collectors post, which has been totally locked and removed and can not longer be viewed.  I think this was unwise as this legislation potentially impacts us ALL.  As a registered independent,  I see this new "law" as yet another power grab by the feds - regardless who is power.

So, to the moderators locking this topic, edit the extreme posts, but do not lock this topic and prevent us from seeing the relevant (and useful) posts, as it is important to us all.  ALL of us need to know the potential impacts of the 2008 changes to the 1900 Lacy legislation that our federal officials has instituted!!!

Take it Easy ... MarK  

granderman - Posted - 08/27/2011:  04:47:53

our republic can survive any president it cannot survive voters that , are foolish enough to not use reason and common sense and continually allow their own government to run over them.  Move Gibson to china next to Greg Riches plant !

SWCooper - Posted - 08/27/2011:  05:29:25

That only works if you're only going to sell Gibsons to the Chinese. At the point your Chinese-made Gibsons hit the US, you'll have to deal with this just the same.

kipperr - Posted - 08/27/2011:  06:16:00

gibson.com/en-us/Lifestyle/News/

minstrelmike - Posted - 08/27/2011:  08:21:35

As far as the mod complaints, same old same old.

As far as saying the legislation is unwise, that seems political to me. (Having an opinion about -anything- substantial to society is being political).

Endangered trees are lot like endangered whales. If you want them around in the future, they need to be protected today.

Protecting them is lot like dealing with the 'blood diamonds.'

Once those diamonds make it to a public market, they cannot be identified and boycotted any more. Profits accrue to sellers and allow for more digging of the diamonds, the killing of whales, or the chopping of trees.

DanielT - Posted - 08/27/2011:  09:25:40

Can't you see the obvious bias in this article? It's in the Wall Street Journal, which is owned by Rupert Murdoch's Newscorp. They have a vested political interest in provoking the kind of "big government's coming to take our stuff" anxiety that the Quinnipiac professor says exists. And I would have to say, the article's a smashing success because that anxiety that they're talking about is being aired out on this and other music/musical instrument message boards all over the internet.

Gibson shouldn't be breaking the law. If they are, they should expect to be called on it at some point. And just because the CEO says "we're not breaking the law" doesn't mean it's true. I mean, who believes corporate CEOs any more about anything (especially one who has kind of a bad track record)?

Cornflake - Posted - 08/27/2011:  10:18:49

DanielT and Minstrelmike--I think you have sanely nailed the point. Chicken Little seems to be running rampant here with a paucity of hard facts.

mvolcjak - Posted - 08/27/2011:  10:30:42

I do believe in protecting endangered species - but this law goes way beyond that...

This is the second raid on Gibson based on the Lacey law 2008 "update".  The first raid was related to ebony.  This had nothing to do with an endangered species issue, but because the ebony was milled in the US and not in India!  So is the Indian mill worker an endangered species?  From what I understand, the wood was legally imported at the time, Gibson has paper work from the Indian government and it is currently suing the US government to get their property back.  This was nearly 2 years ago.  No charges have ever been filed and the wood in question has yet to be returned. 

So, I am not basing this on the Wall street Journal (I seldom read it).  I read the posts in the collectors section, (and there was useful, non-political info in there), as well as actually "googling" this law and the Gibson raids.  This is where I am coming from.

Research this law and you will see how "over the top" it actually is.  It goes well beyond merely protecting endangered species.  There is no "chicken little" here - I am merely stating the facts as I know them.  If I am incorrect, please enlighten me... 

Take it Easy ... MaK

jbalch - Posted - 08/27/2011:  11:33:49

Here is an interesting article in Furniture Today from Aug 2010...regarding the first raid and complaints against Gibson: 

furnituretoday.com/blog/The_Wr..._Raid.php

This article claims to quote some internal Gibson e-mails regarding knowledge about the legality the ebony supply: hfbusiness.com/article/doj-say...p-ebony/1

You be the judge....

DanielT - Posted - 08/27/2011:  12:23:24

yy​quote:

---

Originally posted by mvolcjak

​I read the posts in the collectors section, (and there was useful, non-political info in there), as well as actually "googling" this law and the Gibson raids.

I am merely stating the facts as I know them.  If I am incorrect, please enlighten me... 

---

What I'm asking is simply this: How can you be sure that Gibson isn't breaking the law?  What I'm reading is that you believe Gibson's story because you read the law, found some anecdotal evidence in the collectors section of on an online message board that has a heavy Gibson bias, and then Googled some sort of additional information.  If you look at the articles Jbalch posted - the first of which is in a furniture industry publication, which one imagines could have a bias - cites the evidence fairly even handedly and ​still concludes with the line "With no species on the import documents - it looks like Gibson might've been a sitting duck here."  You'd imagine Gibson would have staff to take care of this little facet of their business, right?  If they don't, shame on them - that's playing with fire.  If they do, shame on them again for not doing due dilligance.  Look around: have other musical instrument building companies that have been raided as well?  Fender?  PRS?   I know that people love their Gibsons and all, but it's entirely likely that they are in the wrong here.

But like I said, Gibson is making this a political issue and I'm sure is doing their damndest (and like I said, doing it effectively) to rally support.  I think it's plainly evident this article (which I would consider primary because it is easily verifiable), that describes Henry Juszkiewicz going onto conservative pundit Dana Loesch's radio show and saying that the “Obama Justice Department Wants Us to Just Shut Our Doors & Go Away.”  I mean, come on - you're telling me that this doesn't reflect an inherent political bias?

thegatewaypundit.com/2011/08/g...-go-away/

erikforgod - Posted - 08/27/2011:  13:59:20

quote:

---

Originally posted by mvolcjak

Well I see 2 topics related to this have already been locked by the moderators  - due to this being too political..

Of course this is "political", since "politicians" enacted this stupid legislation.  There was some relevant and interesting (and non-political ) information on the collectors post, which has been totally locked and removed and can not longer be viewed.  I think this was unwise as this legislation potentially impacts us ALL.  As a registered independent,  I see this new "law" as yet another power grab by the feds - regardless who is power.

So, to the moderators locking this topic, edit the extreme posts, but do not lock this topic and prevent us from seeing the relevant (and useful) posts, as it is important to us all.  ALL of us need to know the potential impacts of the 2008 changes to the 1900 Lacy legislation that our federal officials has instituted!!!

Take it Easy ... MarK  

---

No doubt the work of some very crafty, well funded nutty wack nut special interest group lobby....thats all I will say

Edited by - erikforgod on 08/27/2011 14:01:05

Klondike Waldo - Posted - 08/27/2011:  14:23:41

Suppose the timber in question had been illegally harvested from one of our National Parks and exported through the "gray market" to another country, say, China, to be turned into guitars. Would you still feel that it was some "nutty wack nut special interest lobby group?"  What special interest would that serve?  

erikforgod - Posted - 08/27/2011:  14:29:57

quote:

---

Originally posted by Klondike Waldo

Suppose the timber in question had been illegally harvested from one of our National Parks and exported through the "gray market" to another country, say, China, to be turned into guitars. Would you still feel that it was some "nutty wack nut special interest lobby group?"  What special interest would that serve?  

---

No I agree with you......but it seems like this law  is way over-reaching

mvolcjak - Posted - 08/27/2011:  15:23:30

Daniel,

ThanX for the feedback...

I am not saying Gibson IS innocent.  I have no love for Gibson, and they may be guilty in the most recent raid.

Anyway, what I am saying is that it appears that the first raid appears to be unfounded, and that it never hurts to question authority..

That and the fact that the amendments to the Lacey act now have the US government actively enforcing other countries "labor" type laws in this country, so it goes beyond protecting endangered species. 

If a country wishes to be protectionist, relative to their exports, that is their business, and it is then an internal matter to that specific country.  Brazilian rosewood imports were stopped by Martin not because of scarcity, but because the Brazilian government would only export already milled rosewood, thus keeping their mill workers employed.  Since Martin could no longer mill the rosewood in the manner they wanted, and where they wanted, they stopped using Brazilian rosewood.  (At least this is the way I understand their switch to East Indian rosewood.)

So, as a child of the 60's I must confess that I have a natural, (and honestly acquired), distrust of government.  That aside, I am also being critical of this law due to its overreach since it now also involves international labor relations and not only the endangered species it should be protecting. 

Take it Easy ... MarK

DanielT - Posted - 08/27/2011:  19:13:28

quote:

---

Originally posted by mvolcjak

So, as a child of the 60's I must confess that I have a natural, (and honestly acquired), distrust of government.  That aside, I am also being critical of this law due to its overreach since it now also involves international labor relations and not only the endangered species it should be protecting. 

---

We're really getting only one side of this - Gibson's.  And it wants people to think this whole episode is a government overreach.  But this could easily be about falsified import documents as well.  Ultimately, we don't know what's going on, but Gibson at this point has their PR machine going full blast trying to frame the discourse and like I said, they're doing it effectively to this point.  Why should anyone defend Gibson?  But the thing is, they are...

dmiller - Posted - 08/27/2011:  20:12:36

What the H-E-double-hockey-sticks is THIS??!!

Quote - - -

The title of the article is: 

Guitar Frets: Environmental Enforcement Leaves Musicians in Fear

"excerpt: If you are the lucky owner of a 1920s Martin guitar, it may well be made, in part, of Brazilian rosewood. Cross an international border with an instrument made of that now-restricted wood, and you better have correct and complete documentation proving the age of the instrument. Otherwise, you could lose it to a zealous customs agent—not to mention face fines and prosecution."

End quote

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

My 1968 Martin D-35 is ALL BRAZILIAN ROSEWOOD, (minus the spruce top and the ebony fingerboard).

What's this "1920's B.S."??  The EPA can take a short hike off of a tall cliff (imo).

Those bozos don't know their head from a hole in the ground, and you can bet your bottom dollar

that this is more about CONTROL than it is about "protecting an endangered species".

Cripes - - The EPA reminds me of the old joke I heard back when I worked at

Morgan-Monroe State Forest in southern Indiana (right near Bean Blossom).

There were two forestry employees cruising timber in the State Forest.  They came across a Birch tree and a Beech tree right next to each other, and they saw a sapling tree between the two of them.  Trying to decide what kind of tree the sapling was, one of the forestry guys said "That's a son of a Beech".  The other forestry employee disagreed, and said "No - - That's a son of a Birch.

They continued to disagree (vehemently), when a pileated woodpecker flew by/ stopped/ and pecked at the sapling.  Both forestry employees were astonished to hear the woodpecker say:

"MMMM!  That's the BEST piece of Ash I've EVER stuck my pecker into!"

The two forestry guys remind me of the EPA.

The pileated woodpecker reminds me of reality.

The EPA is all about MANDATING, with no concern for anything else.

My (as usual) IMO. Gibson needs to "get it's house in order",

but the EPA is a detriment added to ANY equation.  

Toss them and ALL regulations out in the gutter where they belong.  

PS - - I don't (didn't) mean for this to sound "political".  

Mods - -  If I "crossed the line", my apologies.  EPA Sucks. 

Edited by - dmiller on 08/27/2011 20:15:24

mvolcjak - Posted - 08/27/2011:  20:59:13

Daniel,

Most people will choose David (Gibson) over Goliath (US gov) - so I think we are talking basic human nature here....

We are talking past each other.  You are discussing Gibson, which may, or may not, be a target, or may be guilty of something.  The Gibson case needs to be followed to see what the actual truth is here,and as you correctly stated, none of us actually knows what the truth here is.  Regardless, one can not blame Gibson for seeking press favorable to their case.  I think we all would do the same if we were accused of something in such a public manner.   Have the "feds" made any comments about these cases against Gibson?  If not, they should (and could) since Gibson is a globally known company...

What I have been getting at is that the Lacey Act amendments go beyond endangered species protection to enforcing laws (not directly related to an endangered species), of foreign governments.  

Here is link to the government's QA regarding the Lacey act.

aphis.usda.gov/plant_health/la...s/faq.pdf

I find #8 particularly troubling and open ended - thus my example of foreign mill worker protection legislation...  Here is the actual text. NOTE: the bold and underlines are mine......

"8. Is there a database of foreign laws that will be enforced as a result of the Lacey Act Amendment?

The Lacey Act now makes it unlawful to import, export, transport, sell, receive, acquire, or purchase in interstate or foreign commerce any plant, with some limited exceptions, taken, possessed, transported or sold in violation of the laws of the United States, a State, an Indian tribe, or any foreign law that protects plants or that regulates certain plant related offenses. It is the responsibility of the importer to be aware of any foreign laws that may pertain to their merchandise prior to its importation into United States. Currently, the U.S. Government has no plans to create such a database."

So, as per the above, this seems too open ended.  Notice, there is no mention of "endangered" plants.  Why is the US government enforcing any foreign law and not specific foreign laws related to plant protection?  What are the "certain plant related offenses" they are referring to in this answer?  The government will not even provide a database to assist the "tax payer" in complying with this law and to know what these plant related offenses might be!  To my way of thinking, many "ignorant" (and innocent) individuals and companies will be victimized by such a poorly implemented piece of legislation.

Take it Easy ... MarK

DanielT - Posted - 08/27/2011:  21:01:44

The post above me exactly embodies the hysterical anxiety I'm talking about. Gibson's CEO is banking that by framing it this way people will say "government overreach" (which they are) and it'll get coverage in Murdoch-type newspapers (which it is, and then some).

mvolcjak - Posted - 08/27/2011:  21:32:41

Daniel,

Are you referring to dmiller's post or mine as being hysterical? 

If it is mine, we need to talk off-line, as I was attempting to have a reasonable discussion.....

Take it  Easy ... MarK

mvolcjak - Posted - 08/27/2011:  21:32:42

Oops -had a double post - please ignore this.

Take it  Easy ... MarK

Edited by - mvolcjak on 08/27/2011 21:37:37

DanielT - Posted - 08/27/2011:  21:49:12

quote:

---

Originally posted by mvolcjak

If it is mine, we need to talk off-line,

---

Definitely not yours.

mvolcjak - Posted - 08/27/2011:  22:29:30

That's what I thought...

While we may not agree on everything here, I think we can discuss this.  I do appreciate your feedback as I know I do not know it "all" and I like being questioned so I am forced to think outside of my  current  (getting to be old fogey) comfort zone.

ThanX again for the feed back..

Take it Easy ... MarK

DanielT - Posted - 08/27/2011:  22:30:04

quote:

---

Originally posted by mvolcjak

Regardless, one can not blame Gibson for seeking press favorable to their case.    

---

Agreed.  But what I find problematic is that all I'm seeing on this particular board is reaction to - and really support for - Gibson's take on the story.  Reaction to this story bypasses the real issue, which is what Gibson did to be raided twice.  However, because Gibson is publicizing a narrative that's kind of hip in the current political climate, they can persuade a percentage of fans to blindly support their claim of "government overreach."

quote:

---

Originally posted by mvolcjak

I find #8 particularly troubling and open ended -

---

I don't find anything about this point to be troubling.  I like that the US Government works with other governments in law enforcement as a matter of policy.  It aids enforcement, makes good neighbors and there are probably many other aspects of US law that contain similar clauses.  Not a problem for me.

quote:

---

Originally posted by mvolcjak

The government will not even provide a database to assist the "tax payer" in complying with this law and to know what these plant related offenses might be!  

---

Gibson's CEO said this, and for a CEO of a company as litigious as Gibson is, I think he's being kind of disingenuous.  I've read that some have suggested that Gibson falsified their import documents.  If​ this is the case, it would be a clear violation of US law and would negate the "enforcing of foreign laws" support argument.  But the overreach narrative is the one Gibson is working hard to promote and as I'm seeing, it's been very effective.

quote:

---

Originally posted by mvolcjak

To my way of thinking, many "ignorant" (and innocent) individuals and companies will be victimized by such a poorly implemented piece of legislation.

---

How many, do you reckon?  As far as guitars are concerned, I can identify exactly one at this point and that's Gibson.  The Quinnipiac law professor fueled the anxiety, but I think that he too is not reliable - for all I know, he is one of the WSJ's go-to talking heads.

Again, "government overreach" wouldn't be a talking point if Gibson didn't make it one.  But they did, probably because it's one of those buzzwords you hear in conservative circles.   And, it's really been scoring points in the current political climate, but basically I think it's a red herring to draw attention away from Gibson's malfeasance.

banjoak - Posted - 08/27/2011:  23:24:14

I think these stories are quite a bit about sensationalism in the media. They get twisted and projected.

First the stories seem to be about importers, and either raw material, or newly manufactured instruments being imported. To which the importer "should" be responsible for knowing.

But has it actually ever affected someone's personal instrument? Do you personally know anyone ever been stopped and checked for documentation; especially as alluded to in the law professor's statement above - for the bridge, or how about the fossilized ivory in a saddle, nut or pins of a guitar; or the frog of a violin bow. Has any musician actually been fined? got their personal instrument confiscated?

mvolcjak - Posted - 08/27/2011:  23:29:14

Daniel,

I do not disagree that Gibson may be guilty.  IMHO, Gibson has not made a decent banjo since they started using the zinc OPF back around 1930, so I do not have not dog in this particular fight..  (I am a pre-war tube and plate guy.)

Gibson aside (and again, this does go beyond Gibson's problems), I am still leery of the open ended parts of the law and the lack of a database to aid in the compliance with the law.  I have not forgotten the Gibson suit vs Elderly Instruments either, so again, I am aware that they do sue people.  I am NOT a Gibson supporter, nor would I ever consider buying a new Gibson anything!

I trusted the government as a benevolent force in my youth.  Then, I went through the 60's and the Vietnam war era, which changed many of my perceptions about government.   I have not seen the government (Republican or Democrat)  do anything other than ensure its own survival as a "complex organization"  (Sorry, my BA is sociology is showing), so I am a skeptic when it comes to anything the government does - especially when it is trying to be "helpful".  

This all being said, nothing you say is incorrect.  It may not all be correct, but I cannot not disprove it either. 

The bottom line here is that neither of us are (ultimately) going to change anything at this point.  I will think about what you have said, but it can not easily change a lifetime of personal experience with the government..

The government of the USA is the best government one can find, but it is still a government, so as my grandfather (a WWI vet) told me, "Never trust the government".  I did not start believing him until I had personal experience to confirm what he said and he is right.

So, be carful who you trust, especially as related to the government, as the government is constantly changing as are the laws it enforces.  

On a final note, I see you are in NY, so I hope you are safe from Hurricane Irene...  Here in Johnston  Co NC (appx 100 mi inland) we only had some wind and about 2" of rain - the NC coast had it worse....

Take it Easy ... MarK

OK-4 - Posted - 08/27/2011:  23:37:05

Let's keep this focused on banjos and not politics. Banjos are neutral. Can a banjo or guitar maker be a sleazeball? Of course. I have no confidence that a guy becomes virtuous just by owning and operating a guitar factory. But they could be good guys. All I know about them is that they are apparently under investigation for breaking a law that passed Congress with overwhelming bipartisan support.

The Gibson advocates seem to want to shift the issue to whether the Lacey Act is a good law or not. That seems like a guilty man's strategy. Again, musical instruments are morally and politically neutral. You can find examples of murders committed using a banjo. But good things come from them also.

These "recent" Lacey Law changes were part of the 2008 Farm Bill, passed with broad bi-partisan support (81-15 in the Senate). The Farm Bill had strong support from well-known conservatives (Mitch McConnell, Richard Shelby, Sam Brownback, Tom Coburn, Jim Inhofe, Bob Corker, and Orrin Hatch all voted for it) and lots of Democrats, too. As far as I know, none of these guys play the banjo.

Westvon - Posted - 08/28/2011:  03:22:47

Kind of reminds me of this, LOLOL!!

youtube.com/watch?v=1deEPu8slhE

Klondike Waldo - Posted - 08/28/2011:  06:04:31

Just the mention of "Gray Market" in a memo raises a red flag for me. As far as "government over -reaching"- that sounds akin to "flag waving is the last refuge of scoundrels". I'm not saying Gibson is guilty, but this appears to be related to enforcing international trade treaties, which is a valid function of any federal government, including ours.  Claiming government over reach is muddying the waters.

stanleytone - Posted - 08/28/2011:  06:24:36

freakin' tree huggers..............................

DanielT - Posted - 08/28/2011:  07:19:05

quote:

---

Originally posted by mvolcjak

So, be carful who you trust, especially as related to the government, as the government is constantly changing as are the laws it enforces.  

---

I didn't say I trusted the government, I just said I didn't have a problem with that law.  But speaking of trust, if the bill had as much conservative support as OK-4 says, who is to say that conservatives on the enforcement committee didn't recommend the raid in the first place?  If you want to energize the base, do something "big governmenty" to make them talk about overreach, like raid the country's most iconic guitar maker and plant the idea in older, politically undecided men that your personal vintage instrument might be confiscated because of a vague rule no one understands? I mean, that's be the demographic best able to both afford these instruments and spread the "overreach" message most effectively, after all.  And Gibson's CEO has already said that he's being intimidated by "Obama."  Now, I don't really believe this scenario - I'm really just entertaining the idea, not accepting it - but if this is a PR stunt it's been shockingly​ effective. 

Ultimately, I agree with Klondike Waldo, that "enforcing international trade treaties" is a legitimate function of government.  But it should be pretty obvious to everyone at this point that Gibson's goal has been to set the narrative and steer their PR dialogue in a particular direction (note that the content of that message has garnered them great​ traction and support in conservative media outlets).  And it really does seems like a guilty man's strategy.

quote:

---

Originally posted by mvolcjak

 

On a final note, I see you are in NY, so I hope you are safe from Hurricane Irene... 

---

Yeah, we're hanging in there, thanks!  Not too bad at all.

minstrelmike - Posted - 08/28/2011:  08:07:48

quote:

---

Originally posted by mvolcjak

...it never hurts to question authority....

---

In my experience, it _always_ hurts when you question authority, even the 'authorities' here on BHO.

Sultans of Claw - Posted - 08/28/2011:  09:24:42

Gymbal31 - Posted - 08/28/2011:  10:05:06

The Wall Street Journal piece is very low on actual facts and quotes from people directly involved in the case cited.

Roll Player - Posted - 08/28/2011:  10:59:52

I'm really wary of choosing sides on this one. Yeah, you've got big government on one side, setting muddy regulatory standards, but why would I think big corporations (Gibson, wood importers/exporters), big media (WSJ, Fox News), or any other big institution would be more trustworthy? Those who whine about government strike me as way too trusting of other huge and powerful institutions.

There's not much here in the way of facts, so I'll just wait on this.

Westvon - Posted - 08/28/2011:  18:01:37

quote:

---

Originally posted by Roll Player

I'm really wary of choosing sides on this one. Yeah, you've got big government on one side, setting muddy regulatory standards, but why would I think big corporations (Gibson, wood importers/exporters), big media (WSJ, Fox News), or any other big institution would be more trustworthy? Those who whine about government strike me as way too trusting of other huge and powerful institutions.

There's not much here in the way of facts, so I'll just wait on this.

---

Not much here in the way of facts?  You are kidding, correct?  This has been an on-going problem with Govt., and is easily documentable.  The massive difference between Fox News, Gibson, Corporations, yada yada yada, and the Government is that the later can imprison you, trash your rights, and confiscate all you own simply by the power of the state.  Gibson, BTW, is miniscule compared to real corporations, an in fact, don't really count (I think) when discussing corporate evil (You know, those horrible, bad wealthy scum bags who build industry and employ people). 

Roll Player - Posted - 08/28/2011:  19:59:54

Gibson may be a relatively small corporation, but if it decides to sue you, it can destroy you simply with the power of its wealth. Ask any of the small luthiers who have received cease and desist letters about that... The lack of facts I was talking about btw, were the facts on this particular case.

It's pretty easy to document all kinds of abuses of wealth and power, not just the governmental ones. All you need is a history book.

Gymbal31 - Posted - 08/28/2011:  20:15:06

quote:

---

Originally posted by Westvon

Not much here in the way of facts?  You are kidding, correct?  This has been an on-going problem with Govt., and is easily documentable.  The massive difference between Fox News, Gibson, Corporations, yada yada yada, and the Government is that the later can imprison you, trash your rights, and confiscate all you own simply by the power of the state.  Gibson, BTW, is miniscule compared to real corporations, an in fact, don't really count (I think) when discussing corporate evil (You know, those horrible, bad wealthy scum bags who build industry and employ people). 

---

Show me some actual facts in the Wall Street Journal piece that are backed up by quotes from other sources.  Show me in that piece where the writer offers even a chance for the opposing viewpoint to be heard, minimally asking for a statement from the Fish and Wildlife Service. 

The writer of the piece, Eric Felton, writes Opinion pieces.  Click on his name at the top of the article, it will show a list of his recent writings and lists this one as having appeared in the "Opinion" section of the paper.

As for the A-440 Piano case, I found this quote from court documents:

A-440 PIANOS, based in Atlanta, Georgia, imports, exports, and sells pianos to domestic and international customers. In September 2009, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Special Agents received information from the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (“CITES”) Secretariat’s office in Geneva, Switzerland, that a representative of A-440 PIANOS had made an inquiry regarding CITES documentation requirements. Within a few weeks, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Special Agents and U.S. Customs and Border Protection Agriculture Specialists inspected a piano shipment imported by A-440 PIANOS. The invoice accompanying the U.S. Customs and Border Protection entry packet declared ten of the eleven pianos in the shipment as having “no ivory keys.” No CITES permits or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service declarations accompanied the shipment. Two pianos had the keyboards removed and five pianos had the individual keys removed. Investigators noted that two piano keyboards were located in the bottom of a crate under furniture and personal effects. The individual keys were located in a crate under a tray of marking pens. The keyboards and individual keys were positively identified to be covered with elephant ivory, which requires a permit to be imported or exported.

Would you say that is a case of "Mr. Vieillard didn't have his paperwork straight" or a case of Mr. Viellard lying about ten of the eleven pianos not having ivory key, trying to hide the keys and keyboards and having NO permits or declarations with the shipment? 

bignews.biz/?id=981752&key...VIEILLARD

DanielT - Posted - 08/28/2011:  20:35:57

quote:

---

Originally posted by Roll Player

Gibson may be a relatively small corporation, but if it decides to sue you, it can destroy you simply with the power of its wealth. Ask any of the small luthiers who have received cease and desist letters about that.

---

Or Elderly Instruments.  It's hilarious to hear Juszkiewicz cry about being "bullied" when his company's done its own fair share of bullying.

mvolcjak - Posted - 08/28/2011:  21:07:40

Yeah - I thought it was pretty short-sighted, (if not actually stupid), on Gibson's part to sue Elderly.  Gibson only hurt itself in the long run...

As for the current Gibson issues - PR can only go so far in legal matters, so Gibson PR is legally meaningless.  We will have to wait for some sort of resolution, as I am sure (at this point) that I have no idea as to what the truth may actually be here.  I am still waiting to hear the fed's version on all this.  Has anyone seen any statements from the gov't relating to these raids?

As for the Lacey act changes - the fact that it was a bi-partisan bill means nothing to me, as being a non-affiliated voter, I dis-like Republican and Democrat politicians equally.  I still think the Lacey act contains some troubling sections, which may, or may not, be enforced at any given time.

Take it Easy ... MarK

pick1936 - Posted - 08/28/2011:  21:24:46

Well don't worry  about  Chris  Martin  He  has  been  a   tree  hugger  for  ever,  He  Will  soon  be  making  Martins  from  card  board  next,  He  has  already  started  down   that  path.

Necvhille.  In  Higginsville,

Lee  Kelso

banjoak - Posted - 08/28/2011:  22:40:25

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gymbal31

Show me some actual facts in the Wall Street Journal piece that are backed up by quotes from other sources.  Show me in that piece where the writer offers even a chance for the opposing viewpoint to be heard, minimally asking for a statement from the Fish and Wildlife Service. 

---

C'mon now, facts get in the way of an interesting story. And the much of the media is about selling a good story. (sells more papers than a list of facts) Got to put a personalize the story to make it "human interest", to create empathy, even better when you can put the human interest aspect of being a victim of the amorphous big guys or system (which often doe not get portrayed with an individual human aspect, but as a bureaucrat). Facts are just uninteresting.

Writer Thomas Kida points out:

"We prefer stories and anecdotes to statistics and facts. Even a bad story is preferred over great statistics, and this shouldn’t be surprising. We’re social animals, so whatever seems to connect us to others will have a bigger impact than cold, impersonal numbers."

"In general, people trust unique personal experiences over “impersonal” data."

Our bias for stories can be manipulated by the media. Further we like stories that are unusual (the unusual is what makes it a news story).

BanjoLink - Posted - 08/29/2011:  13:03:47

Mark, you absolutely right smack on the money on this one.

I have no complaints with the U.S. enforcing any law, but at some point they have to make the charges known and either proceed with their case or return the confiscated material. If they are wrong (U.S.) then there should certainly be some compensation due to Gibson. If Gibson is falsifying documents or otherwise violating or circumventing the law, then sock it to them, but don't make them wait two years!