Environmental Enforcement Agents Targeting Guitars 379
tetrahedrassface writes "According to the Wall Street Journal, Federal agents again raided guitar maker Gibson this past week, seizing several pallets of wood and computer documents. At the heart of the issue is the wood that is being used in guitars and whether or not it comes from sustainable sources. The company insists it is being harassed and made to 'cry uncle' to the government's enforcement laws. The article notes that exotic fret and tone woods are protected in order to prevent the equivalent of 'blood diamond like trade,' but the ramifications now extend to guitar owners. If you play a vintage guitar, or a hand-built guitar made of old stock woods that were legally obtained years ago, you better not fly with it. 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.'"
Gibson Forums (Score:5, Informative)
Re:It's about time (Score:1, Informative)
It's about time the EPA had its funding cut. There's nine billion [epa.gov] that few would miss.
Not exactly... (Score:5, Informative)
The feds claim against Gibson is not that they are using wood from non sustainable sources, as stated above. Gibson has clear documentation showing that it is.The feds maintain that the issue is that the wood was not "finished" by Indian workers, as (possibly) required by Indian law.
Incidentally, the Indian government is not involved.
Re:It's about time (Score:5, Informative)
It's about time the EPA had its funding cut. There's nine billion [epa.gov] that few would miss.
Why not cut the Department of Defense or the the FAA instead? I suggest this because they have just as much to do with the Fish and Wildlife Service as the EPA.
In case I am being too subtle, the FWS is not part of the EPA. In fact the service predates the EPA by about 100 years.
Re:Musicians (Score:5, Informative)
This article is fear-mongering. Gibson is suspected of importing illegal goods (in this case, ebony, if the article is to be believed). The CEO of Gibson says they didn't do anything wrong. There is an investigation.
Note: There was never a musician stopped by US customs for travelling with an "illegal" instrument.
Furthermore, the article doesn't give even a moment's thought to why the wood Gibson is accused of using is illegal to import, and why the government agency is required to investigate.
There is no threat to musicians. End of story.
It's called in rem jurisdiction (Score:2, Informative)
Since you are obviously expert enough in Constitutional law to believe this lawsuit is unconstitutional, it surprises me that you have never heard of in rem jurisdiction, which is one of the oldest concepts in Anglo-American common law and naval law.
Asset forfeiture (Score:5, Informative)
Forget it - this is asset forfeiture. The feds already raided Gibson once, back in 2009. [justia.com] They took a lot of ebony, but never filed charges. Gibson is still fighting the asset forfeiture case, and the burden of proof is exactly wrong: Gibson must prove their innocence of any wrong-doing. The feds want to keep the stuff; it would be auctioned off, and they would get to keep the proceeds. One of the theories explaining this second raid is that the feds are pissed that Gibson hasn't just rolled over on the first case.
Asset forfeiture is perverse: you aren't charged with anything at all - your *property* is. The Gibson case is entitled "United States of America v. Ebony Wood in Various Forms". There is no presumption of innocence, because your property isn't a person, and anyway isn't being charged with a crime. The fact that this is naked theft is apparently beside the point - it is a very lucrative racket for law enforcement agencies at all levels.
INDEED (Score:2, Informative)
If you have something like ivory or some rare wood, if you make the value of it next to nothing, legitimate businesses will have no incentive to have that resource conserved.
And how do you suggest you "make" the value of it next to nothing?
The reason there's a value for it: many guitarists think that (even running ti trough all those electronics and distortion) it makes for a better sounding guitar (Les Paul himself proved them all wrong, but that's a different matter.); therefore, there's a demand for that wood. Now since there's a demand, the Indians will sell it because they want and need the money.
Supply and Demand. Econ 101.
...legitimate businesses will have no incentive to have that resource conserved.
The only time I have ever heard of businesses wanting conservation are various N. American fishing industries. They figured out the hard way that unless they actively manage their resources, they'll end up out of business. And it's not just the fish they're after that they manage. Through the help of biologists, they actually understand that it's one big ecosystem and you CANNOT just preserve one species because they all work in harmony; which is something the logging industry fails repeatedly to understand - especially in Third World countries. It's a "slash and slash" mentality.
Once upon a time, sea otters off of the coast of California (Monterey Bay) were in demand for their fur - old rich biches like dead animals around their wrinkly necks. The population was decimated. So what?, ask the ignorant. Their just animals!
But sea otters LOVE sea urchins and because the sea urchins only predator was just about wiped out, the urchins reproduced like humans. So what?, asks the ignorant.
Sea urchins just LOVE kelp and they ate like pigs and destroyed the kelp forests. So what? asks the ignorant.
Fish mate and breed in those kelp forests and when the forests were destroyed, the fish stopped breeding. So what? asks the ignorant.
The fisheries collapsed and so did the fisherman, the canneries, the processors, the mechanics, the bankers, the investors, the maintenance workers, the tax base, and everyone else who made their lively hood on those stupid fish that owed the existence to those "stupid" sea otters.
Environmentalists see the big picture and they see that our very existence is dependent on the environment. People who exploit the environment cause us all physical harm one way or another.
Gibson is indirectly causing physical harm of the Indian people and should be punished for their ignorance and criminality.
Re:This is why environmentalism has a bad name (Score:5, Informative)
Or fining someone $17,000 with clearly grandfather ivory keys (which everyone acknowledges are legitimate to own) simply because his paperwork was a little out of order?
Saying that the guy had his paperwork "a little out of order" is disingenuous. The person in question was trying to import 11 pianos, and had declared that there was no Ivory on them. However, that was only true because he had removed the Ivory keys and hidden them in his luggage, where they were uncovered by customs inspectors. And not only that, his company had asked officials about the importation requirements prior to this, so he clearly knew what he was doing, and was caught red-handed.
http://www.justice.gov/usao/gan/press/2011/03-09-11.html
Re:It's about time (Score:3, Informative)
Sorry to be the one to tell you but...
We past that point a LONG LONG time ago.
Re:Musicians (Score:4, Informative)
I'd suggest Importing, Exporting or Travelling with Musical Instruments [bluegrasswales.org] for more more information about the restrictions that impact traveling musicians. While it's a bit UK centric, the CITES rules apply here too. As for the idea that the concerns here are just fear-mongering, try taking an older instrument made with ivory somewhere and watch how that turns out, as the most extreme example. Ebony isn't on the CITES list, but there's plenty of other materials appearing in many vintage guitars that are.
Re:Musicians (Score:4, Informative)
The wood isn't illegal. India is protesting because they insist that the wood be processesed, in India, by Indian workers, before Gibson gets it. The state department is enforcing India's claim.
This isn't a matter of ecology, it's just business as usual.
I'm a semi-pro guitarist/musician. This stuff impacts me directly.
I actually called the Indian Embassy. They say they did not file any complaints to anyone about the rosewood, and do not support the raid on Gibson.
Further, the rosewood in question *is* finished into pre-cut & polished fingerboard slabs, was inspected & OK'd for export by Indian authorities, and for import by US Customs (Gibson ain't sneaking this stuff into the country in jungle-built subs, after all, like cocaine!).
AFAICT, Gibson is also the only major US guitar maker that's in a "right-to-work" state. Gibson has also contributed to Republican campaigns. All major US guitar makers that I know of use Indian rosewood and other CITES regulated materials, yet Gibson is the only maker that's been raided (twice since '09!) and had guitars and wood seized.
Gibson is in trouble because the DOJ, in it's infinite wisdom, thinks that the finished fretboard pieces they got from India, although they were deemed OK for export by India and OK'd for import by US Customs aren't, in the F&W's/DOJ's opinion, "finished enough" according to the *F&W'sDOJ's interpretation* of Indian export laws (NOT India's interpretation of THEIR OWN LAW!!...they filed no complaint and don't support the F&W's/DOJ's actions)...and therefor in violation of the amended-in-2008 Lacey Act despite all statements and evidence to the contrary, even from India.
The first raid on Gibson in '09, as far as I can determine, was based upon statements made by either F&W and/or the DOJ to a judge, asserting that they believed some portion/part of the chain-of-custody paperwork was forged, in order to obtain a warrant to raid & search Gibson facilities. So far, NO CHARGES have been filed regarding the '09 raid & seizure, and the DOJ has had the judge delay indefinitely any further court proceedings, leaving some $500K-$1M in guitars & materials seized from Gibson in limbo.
Not necessarily that *Gibson* forged, had forged, or knew of any forging of any documents (could have been any of the suppliers/warehousers/transporters in the chain), but according to the letter of the amended portion of the Lacey Act, *who* forged them, why, or who had knowledge of any irregularity was immaterial, and the Act as written didn't protect Gibson (or any other US company or individual) for criminal or civil liability for acts outside their knowledge or control...called "strict liability"...which was one of the things those opposed to passage of the amendment to the Lacey Act were against due to it's unfairness.
Here's just one example of Lacey Act injustice that put an innocent man in jail for 8 years!: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pHvJ6ld_Mic [youtube.com]
Here's a piece on the difficulties that individual musicians now face in traveling with guitars and other wood instruments because of CITES: http://www.fretboardjournal.com/features/magazine/guitar-lover%E2%80%99s-guide-cites-conservation-treaty [fretboardjournal.com]
Here's a couple of links to Gibson regarding the raids:
http://www.gibson.com/en-us/Lifestyle/News/ceo-outrage-0826-2011/ [gibson.com]
http://www.gibson.com/en-us/Lifestyle/News/gibson-0825-2011/ [gibson.com]
I'm not against conservation at all. However, the jack-booted ham-handedness with which the laws are written, interpreted, and enforced should be an outrage to anyone.
Strat
Happened to surfboard manufacturers 5 years ago (Score:4, Informative)
http://www.surfermag.com/features/clarkfoam/ [surfermag.com]
Back in 2005, the average price for a new surfboard jumped about 50% (~$400 to ~$600 a board) and that price hasn't come down on anything but generic shapes (i.e. Costco surfboards) since. Now our surfboard blanks are lower quality, come from companies in China, who have no qualms about dumping toxic chemicals into the environment, and they cost about the same because there is no competition other than a few colluding companies. A LOT of independent American surfboard shapers (aka small business owners) have been pushed out because they can't get blanks reliably in small numbers like they could directly from Clark in the past.
As I recall, when Clark shutdown he basically said he'd been dealing with these people (government authorities) for 30 years and couldn't continue to carry this industry on his shoulders or his bank account anymore. The US economy will suffer, likely forever, and we will lose art and innovation, but it wasn't his burden to carry alone. And he walked away. Probably surfing on a remote island paradise somewhere...
Re:Gibson Forums (Score:5, Informative)
Not mentioned on the forums:
For more info: The Affidavit (PDF warning) [worldnow.com].
Re:It's about time (Score:4, Informative)
". . . but since they donate to the Democratic party they remain unraided."
There. Fixed that for you.
Re:It's about time (Score:2, Informative)
Are you serious? Communist countries are PURE regulation. That is the point. The government controls everything.