Log in
Register
Home
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New profile posts
Latest activity
News
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Features
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Install the app
Install
Reply to thread
Home
Forums
Off Topic
The Basement
Gibson raided
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Ryan Lantzy" data-source="post: 38925" data-attributes="member: 7"><p>Re: Gibson raided</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I don't know 100% of the story, but I've followed it from when it broke most recently. My impression is the exact opposite. Gibson tried to import wood legally from Madagascar. For whatever reason, the US Government did not believe it was legal. Gibson is still waiting for a decision on that infringement (haven't even had their day in court, nor have they been given information as to exactly what the infringement was).</p><p></p><p>Gibson then changed suppliers to someone in India. The US Government again found something they didn't like about their importation of said product, despite Gibson's claim that all of the correct paperwork has been filed. The Government has again, failed to make it known exactly what the infringements are (maybe they do have a bad lawyer, but it shouldn't require a good lawyer (or any lawyer at all) to determine what you are being charged with *exactly.*</p><p></p><p>Gibson's legal counsel surmises that it has to do with part of the Lacey Act that says a given product must not only be imported according to US law but also the laws in the other country. Granted, that makes sense for things like child labor, worker exploitation, illegal poaching of endangered species, etc, etc. But a law regarding how the product is finished by workers there??? I think that's a stretch for any company to be able to completely comply, and bears at least consideration of modification of the original treaty.</p><p></p><p>Gibson has said that they've got support from other parts of the guitar building industry in the US and given the way in which the cases have been handled, I'm inclined to believe Gibson's CEO in the video I linked to previously. </p><p></p><p>The scary thing is that if Gibson's supposition is correct about why their might be an infringement and with the interperetations of the Lacey Act I've come across, the current owner of said wood product is held accountable under strict liability. Meaning, if you own one of the guitars recently manufactured with these woods you are liable (not Gibson). Also, if you have a vintage guitar containing these woods you had better get it well documented that is grandfathered or that the contents were obtained legally or you may also face fines and/or confiscation of the instrument.</p><p></p><p>IMO it would be like destroying a painting because it contained chemicals that violated EPA rules.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Ryan Lantzy, post: 38925, member: 7"] Re: Gibson raided I don't know 100% of the story, but I've followed it from when it broke most recently. My impression is the exact opposite. Gibson tried to import wood legally from Madagascar. For whatever reason, the US Government did not believe it was legal. Gibson is still waiting for a decision on that infringement (haven't even had their day in court, nor have they been given information as to exactly what the infringement was). Gibson then changed suppliers to someone in India. The US Government again found something they didn't like about their importation of said product, despite Gibson's claim that all of the correct paperwork has been filed. The Government has again, failed to make it known exactly what the infringements are (maybe they do have a bad lawyer, but it shouldn't require a good lawyer (or any lawyer at all) to determine what you are being charged with *exactly.* Gibson's legal counsel surmises that it has to do with part of the Lacey Act that says a given product must not only be imported according to US law but also the laws in the other country. Granted, that makes sense for things like child labor, worker exploitation, illegal poaching of endangered species, etc, etc. But a law regarding how the product is finished by workers there??? I think that's a stretch for any company to be able to completely comply, and bears at least consideration of modification of the original treaty. Gibson has said that they've got support from other parts of the guitar building industry in the US and given the way in which the cases have been handled, I'm inclined to believe Gibson's CEO in the video I linked to previously. The scary thing is that if Gibson's supposition is correct about why their might be an infringement and with the interperetations of the Lacey Act I've come across, the current owner of said wood product is held accountable under strict liability. Meaning, if you own one of the guitars recently manufactured with these woods you are liable (not Gibson). Also, if you have a vintage guitar containing these woods you had better get it well documented that is grandfathered or that the contents were obtained legally or you may also face fines and/or confiscation of the instrument. IMO it would be like destroying a painting because it contained chemicals that violated EPA rules. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Home
Forums
Off Topic
The Basement
Gibson raided
Top
Bottom
Sign-up
or
log in
to join the discussion today!