Jeff-7 Posted August 31, 2011 Share Posted August 31, 2011 Still venting - These "societies" play just like corporations - they grease the politicos with lobbying and donations to keep things just the way they like them. Until something is done about allowing that kind of influence to effect elections and law makers, I don't see anything changing. Recently in the last couple of years or so, there has been a push at reforming some of the rules, but there again, the dirty grease hits the wheels. I know, it seems a bit overwhelming and exasperating but change requires effort and it just isn't going to happen until people wake up and begin to voice their concerns more than what they are doing now. I won't go into talking politics as that's sure to bring down the wrath of Duane and the rest of the mod squad, but issues with lobbying explain themselves and need no clarification by me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
milod Posted August 31, 2011 Share Posted August 31, 2011 The problem with ASCAP/BMI is "political," but definitely not partisan per se. If you're a non-musician left wing liberal or a right wing conservative, who will you believe, me and CB? Or several lawyers who have all their "facts" of how these folks are protecting the intellectual property rights of creative people? That's the problem. Add to that, the issue isn't one even considered by current federal legislators. They're doing their political "thing," and unless there's a big noise, there's no incentive to make change to something that has existed long before any of them were born - again, to "protect" intellectual property of creative people. If either left or right wing got involved, they've got problems also in figuring where this fits. If I'm a right winger, is this "conservative" to get rid of regulatory ability of a civilian corporation, or is it "conservative" to protect the creative? If you're a left winger, is it "liberal" to protect the little creative guy's property from capitalists or is it "liberal" to remove their rights to ownership of their only valuable possession? That's where I see the political problem: It doesn't really fit politics, even though it's federal law that was created when nobody imagined goons would be out to shut down two-bit local music venues with "we're going to sue you outa business" threats. I wish it were something I could criticize from the perspective of either the political right or left, but the bottom line here is that it's sufficiently complex that it would take a lot of major effort to do a rewrite of federal law. There's not the constituency to make that latter appear worthwhile, especially against the muscle of ASCAP and BMI built up over the years along with huge bits of case law in their favor from the days when records were made of plastic disks. <sigh> I guess I just showed myself to be cynical. But... I'll add that it appears whoever is going after Gibson has a similar mentality to that of the ASCAP/BMI folks. For heaven's sake, don't get 'em angry because there's no winning against them because even if you win, they don't pay for what they cost you. m Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riffster Posted September 1, 2011 Share Posted September 1, 2011 OK gang lets look at this, first I love the fact there are still some "American Companies". I have spent a little time researching this company and the only American art of our guitars is the labor putting it together. If Gibson is innocent then far be it; but that is to be decided by the courts but lets look at the publicly available information on the internet Gibson Guitar sources mahogany from community-managed forests in the Rio Plátano and Maya Biosphere Reserves, where tropical forest areas have been set aside by the Honduran and Guatemalan governments, respectively, to conserve their unique natural and cultural heritage. Not American wood Gibson Guitar purchases the rosewood for our fret boards from India A short bit of online research revealed that the pots on the circuit board in the newer guitars are designed and made by Bourns, which its website indicates are manufactured in Taiwan. The Korean Kluson Tuners are Imported. I have not been able to locate the MFG for the other metal parts but since they are the same as Epiphone parts, need I say more. So for all you flag waving individuals about good ole Gibson the only American part is it is Made in USA, with parts that came from over seas. Now we wonder why Gibson is in trouble again. Yup this guitar is as American as my American Dodge Ramcharger made in Mexico. So lets continue being on Henry's side since he would never intentionally lie or try to deceive us. Good ole Indian, Korean, Honduran and some chinese parts also are on our good ole Flag waving American guitars. Oh there is someone laughing its Henry and crew every time they get on the soap box saying its a "Good Ole American Guitar". And you think we don't know all this? metal parts are not the same as Epiphone by the way, they may be German. I guess you didn't mention Maple because that could be American and you did not want to point that out, I really never understood why you hang out on the forum of a company that you don't respect, or their products. You've around for years, why not stay at the Ibanez forum? What does this say about you? that's right... I think you have issues and come here to vent them out. Look at Guitars like Martin, Taylor and even Fender gets their Maple from Canada. Fact: most guitars are made from wood that does not grow in this country. If you like import guitars, good for you you just saved a lot of money. thank you for pointing out that Mahogany does not grow in the US, uh uh, tell us more Mr Science!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CodeMonk Posted September 1, 2011 Share Posted September 1, 2011 Looking for some advice/opinions, etc on something here. Have a look at this thread (Yeah I know, a thread in the Epi forum about a Gibson): http://forum.gibson.com/index.php?/topic/71165-adivice-on-shipping-to-au/ Ok, so this is the deal... trading my Gibson Explorer for an 18watt Marshall Clone. Problem is, the amp is in Australia, I'm in the US. Figuring out the best way to ship was/is a nightmare due to USPS shipping size restrictions. But I think I have that all sorted out. Is this Lacey Act BS going to cause me problem? Is the guitar likely to get confiscated? Looking for opinions, advice, Info, whatever. Thanks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Silenced Fred Posted September 1, 2011 Share Posted September 1, 2011 I think this thread wins the award for most deleted posts Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cookieman15061 Posted September 1, 2011 Share Posted September 1, 2011 The problem with ASCAP/BMI is "political," but definitely not partisan per se. If you're a non-musician left wing liberal or a right wing conservative, who will you believe, me and CB? Or several lawyers who have all their "facts" of how these folks are protecting the intellectual property rights of creative people? That's the problem. Add to that, the issue isn't one even considered by current federal legislators. They're doing their political "thing," and unless there's a big noise, there's no incentive to make change to something that has existed long before any of them were born - again, to "protect" intellectual property of creative people. If either left or right wing got involved, they've got problems also in figuring where this fits. If I'm a right winger, is this "conservative" to get rid of regulatory ability of a civilian corporation, or is it "conservative" to protect the creative? If you're a left winger, is it "liberal" to protect the little creative guy's property from capitalists or is it "liberal" to remove their rights to ownership of their only valuable possession? That's where I see the political problem: It doesn't really fit politics, even though it's federal law that was created when nobody imagined goons would be out to shut down two-bit local music venues with "we're going to sue you outa business" threats. I wish it were something I could criticize from the perspective of either the political right or left, but the bottom line here is that it's sufficiently complex that it would take a lot of major effort to do a rewrite of federal law. There's not the constituency to make that latter appear worthwhile, especially against the muscle of ASCAP and BMI built up over the years along with huge bits of case law in their favor from the days when records were made of plastic disks. <sigh> I guess I just showed myself to be cynical. But... I'll add that it appears whoever is going after Gibson has a similar mentality to that of the ASCAP/BMI folks. For heaven's sake, don't get 'em angry because there's no winning against them because even if you win, they don't pay for what they cost you. m BIG GOVERNMENT because too much is never enough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
badbluesplayer Posted September 1, 2011 Share Posted September 1, 2011 It's a good thing that Gibson doesn't hire you guys to defend them because I've never seen so much ignorant nonsense in my life as I've seen from you guys trying to defend Gibson. Henry shut down the factory and sent the employees home, not the feds. The law that they're supposedly breaking is a US law, not an Indian law. On and on with the wrong facts and the nonsense. Y'all can't even distill the facts from all this info. You can't argue the law until you get the facts straight. Sheesh. I'd love to see y'all take an LSAT test. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Searcy Posted September 1, 2011 Share Posted September 1, 2011 It's a good thing that Gibson doesn't hire you guys to defend them because I've never seen so much ignorant nonsense in my life as I've seen from you guys trying to defend Gibson. Henry shut down the factory and sent the employees home, not the feds. The law that they're supposedly breaking is a US law, not an Indian law. On and on with the wrong facts and the nonsense. Y'all can't even distill the facts from all this info. You can't argue the law until you get the facts straight. Sheesh. I'd love to see y'all take an LSAT test. Well take us to school then counselor. What are the facts and from where did you source them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RUSHian Posted September 1, 2011 Share Posted September 1, 2011 The Government can pry my Les Pauls from my cold dead fingers!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
milod Posted September 1, 2011 Share Posted September 1, 2011 Cookie... The ASCAP/BMI thing actually predates "big government" as we know it today. The problem as I see it is that after so many years of case law... it literally will take an act of Congress to undo what these guys use for bullying small venue operators. I have a hunch that back in the "sheet music" and early disk and radio days, nobody imagined that things would be taken to this extreme with laws that probably made quite good sense then. m Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TommyK Posted September 1, 2011 Share Posted September 1, 2011 After reading the court document, requesting a warrant I have learned that the government's contention is: a. Wood cut into slabs thicker than 6mm i.e. fingerboard blanks, was mis-identifed as sheet wood 6mm or less, suitable for use as guitar backs and sides. Sheet wood has less restrictions than slab wood, therefore these were illegally brought into the country. The functional equivalent of bringing a Tiger into the country with paperwork identifying it as a Tabby cat. b. Gibson was not, on some shipments, identified as the final consignee. Rather, Gibson's importer of record, LMI. The mis-identification of the FORM of the wood being imported could have been a clerical error, albeit a BIG clerical error. However the error was made IN INDIA. Since LMI sells guitar parts retail, how can they identify all of the ultimate consignee? Also, since Gibson is not their only customer, Why was Gibson singled out as the only criminal? To hear the government tell it LMI is responsible for tracking every stick of lumber it sells. Too, there is no mention of LMI being prosecuted either. The other begged question is, since I, a low paid peon, was able to read the warrant and deduce that, why is the learned Henry J and his highly paid lawyers unable to deduce that? Or are they just feigning ignorance? This COULD be a clerical error of monumental proportions, but claiming they do not KNOW what the problem is, is a stretch. Saying, "they weren't finished to the extent they should have been to satisfy the Indian authorities," Just doesn't seem to follow any of the information on the warrant. This still doesn't explain why Gibson is the only LMI customer being prosecuted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TommyK Posted September 1, 2011 Share Posted September 1, 2011 Honestly, since confiscation of the wood is the only punishment thus far meted out, Gibson should, in my estimation, knock of LMI's door and say, "WTF? You owe me $1,000,000 worth of properly documented fingerboard blanks until this is settled." LMI needs to knock on their Indian supplier's door and say "WTF? You owe me some properly documented fingerboard blanks until this gets sorted out." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigKahune Posted September 1, 2011 Share Posted September 1, 2011 ..... Saying, "they weren't finished to the extent they should have been to satisfy the Indian authorities," Just doesn't seem to follow any of the information on the warrant. .... Who says any of the information on the warrant is worth the paper it's written on. The FnW can characterize the situation anyway they like and print up any infractions they like - they in fact my be totally wrong. It's not a fact until a court decides what is factual and what isn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stein Posted September 1, 2011 Share Posted September 1, 2011 TOMMYK: I can see you actually READ it, and I have a lot of the same questions. I had to read it many times over. What I understand, or am guessing, is that the fingerboard blanks were exported from India under a different code and set of laws, categorizing them as "finished" goods, and thus not either 4407 (wood more than 6mm) or 4408 (less than 6mm veneers). "Finished" products do not fall under either code. Obviously, 4407 is illegal, so the "investigator" seems to have them dead to rights. But what does it REALLY prove? I think it is obvious that no one would willingly put down a code that they knew was illegal. Had he investigated just a little further (I believe he did) he would have found that they did not leave India as 4407 (unfinished). THAT little piece of info is missing from his affidavit. So, I think this is where politics and HENRY's accusation of translating Indian law come in: I think the classification of "finished" blanks by the Indian government was obviously intended to allow the sales and export of this wood. Perhaps a loophole created by the Indian government, or perhaps to assist in their labor laws, but either way, Henry maintains the Indian government is aware and willing to export this as a product. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cookieman15061 Posted September 2, 2011 Share Posted September 2, 2011 Cookie... The ASCAP/BMI thing actually predates "big government" as we know it today. The problem as I see it is that after so many years of case law... it literally will take an act of Congress to undo what these guys use for bullying small venue operators. I have a hunch that back in the "sheet music" and early disk and radio days, nobody imagined that things would be taken to this extreme with laws that probably made quite good sense then. m Oh I know M. Just tossing gasoline. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Californiaman Posted September 7, 2011 Share Posted September 7, 2011 I just found this article about the Gibson raid from FOX News. Interesting. Gibson raid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TommyK Posted September 7, 2011 Share Posted September 7, 2011 I just found this article about the Gibson raid from FOX News. Interesting. Gibson raid. Seriously? A major network news outlet decided this was worth reporting? One of the big three???... oh wait... Fox isn't one of the big three. my bad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Searcy Posted September 7, 2011 Share Posted September 7, 2011 Seriously? A major network news outlet decided this was worth reporting? One of the big three???... oh wait... Fox isn't one of the big three. my bad. Do the "Big 3" even have news shows any more? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fl00dsm0k3 Posted September 8, 2011 Share Posted September 8, 2011 Do the "Big 3" even have news shows any more? who are the big 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
damian Posted September 8, 2011 Share Posted September 8, 2011 who are the big 3 Dave Letterman, Jay Leno, and Jimmy Fallon....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrNylon Posted September 8, 2011 Share Posted September 8, 2011 To bad they aren't raiding the counterfeit guitar makers abroad. Or I guess that doesn't count! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
milod Posted September 8, 2011 Share Posted September 8, 2011 RE: news outlets... I'm not sure but what one might make a case that CNN and Fox currently are "the big two" for many Americans. Personally, I scan between the two every morning. You'll generally get a good range of actual news and from different perspectives - and I don't mean "politics." Usually Fox is more national, often more northeast centered, CNN more international and southern US centered. Both have evenings of opinion-oriented programming which to me is a shame, but get both good ratings. It's also cheaper than adding people who actually report and video stuff. The three big broadcast networks... I never watch. I'm usually still at work when they "play" on television. I hit the regional daily newspaper on line and most of the time in print. Funny thing about Fox. A real history nut might make a case that in ways they're the successor to the old Dumont television network that got a good start in early broadcast television but a number of mostly technical difficulties put them pretty much "out." CNN is strictly a new thing that did work as a business operation. When they were the only cable game around, it was perhaps inevitable they'd have competition. They also were perceived by many to be very left of center so their competition inevitably would be perceived as right of center or there'd be no reason for competition. My personal opinion is that the sharp cable competition between those two helps keep both more honest in the morning news blocks - and offers two visions of what "fair" coverage of political issues might be and what stories might be of most interest to an audience. There also were some national radio networks that don't exist today; the wire services are cut deeply from the influence they once had, and we're functionally down to AP and Reuters. Again largely from technical and economic issues. Then there's the Internet with opinions on everything and questionable sourcing. m Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stein Posted September 8, 2011 Share Posted September 8, 2011 I rescently turned on the AM radio to get some news. What I found frustrating, was no matter how many stations I tried, I had to listen to opinions for a long time before I could get some actual information. And what information I could get was very little. I think for the most part, the ethics that used to govern what was reported by those who considered themselves reporting news do not exist anymore. What ever happened to the desire to inform? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
milod Posted September 8, 2011 Share Posted September 8, 2011 Stein... Most of the guys my age are retired or dead. I'm not retired, but I'll admit I might look as though I were the latter. <grin> m Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TommyK Posted September 8, 2011 Share Posted September 8, 2011 Dave Letterman, Jay Leno, and Jimmy Fallon....... I wouldn't put Fallon in this group. He is about as funny as a dead baby joke. What is stupefying is that none of the big three have the good sense to pick up Conan O'Brien. To be honest, I thought his humor a bit sophomoric, but he was, generally funny and a good host. Fallon? pheh! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.