Gibson ducks under Mjolnir.....

The value of the forfeiture of the wood, in the article sg linked to, is just the value of the Madagascar Ebony. Under the agreement, Gibson also forfeits $155K in Indian woods, but Gibby can get that wood back under the deal if they can show the wood was legally sourced in India.


Taylor Guitars has been a lot more pro-active on this issue. Taylor's message is "Get used to Ebony with streaks in it . . ":

Taylor Guitars Sustainable Ebony Mill in the Cameroon

Gibson is probably still working out how to spin this before they do more then a press release. One thing no one has mentioned in all of this strikes me as the 800 pound elephant in the room. In America, if the cost of the penalties for a particular action does not outweigh the profits gained from non-compliance then the company will generally always opt for non-compliance. I'd be willing to bet the farm that's exactly what Gibson did in this case.

Gibson is a private company, so until someone important leaves and writes a book you'll never know the whole story. IMHO, Gibson knew exactly what it was doing and didn't feel sorry for doing it, they just felt sorry about getting caught. Gibson will pay the fine and not miss a step.

I always felt Taylor's "Sustainable Ebony Mill in Cameroon" promotion was just a pitch. They compete for a much smaller niche then Gibson or Fender, so the whole environmental angle gives them the perception of the moral high ground. More then likely they made inroads into Cameroon to influence legislation in exchange for building the mill. Perhaps I'm just a bit too cynical, but this serves two purposes for Taylor. It gives them a steady source of cheaper ebony and keeps them out of the deep end of the Lacey Act pool.

The modern guitar\bass industry is paying the price for it's success. They have built up "standards" of "tone woods" based on material sourcing factors pertinent in the last century. They did such a good job convincing the buying public what woods were superior that they painted themselves into a corner.

I have little or no sympathy for them. Just spend a little time researching what woods the smaller luthier's are using and the results they achieve. Time for a little less contrived mojo and a bit more common sense.

The sermon on the Government site is typical. Pounding their chests claiming victory enforcing special interest legislation. I'm sure more then a few toasts were made by the domestic timber interests after this settlement. I guess if they cared about international forestry they'd be more involved exporting their methods and practices to the rest of the world. Don't stay up waiting for that to happen.

Sorry, just caught me in a rare mood with this one.

Happy Trails

Cynical One

Leaving aside the question of whether there is such a thing as "too cynical", this is just smart on Taylor's part. Yes, they get a steady source, and yes, they're good to go with their regulatory compliance. Did they grease some palms in the Cameroon to get the result? Who knows?

Gibson is big enough that they had the choice to run their scheme and pay up if/when they got caught. Taylor and other smaller outfits don't have that choice, as they are less able to bear the loss, so Taylor went another route, complied with the law, and probably paid a good deal more for the product in the short run- but probably is better off in the long run.

As for Gibson's blameworthiness, or lack thereof, we'll never know the full story since there wasn't a trial, but the published accounts indicate that Gibson's management was made aware of the problems with the wood by their own people well in advance of the Feds raid.

And, maybe it's me being "too cynical", but I'd lay money that one of Gibson's competitors tipped the Feds- it's highly unlikely that anyone in the government tumbled to what Gibson was doing on their own.

Gibson isn't going to lose a drop of blood over this settlement. A deal like this means both parties got what they wanted out of it.

And all they need to do is fire the VP in charge of this debacle and they get their money back.

What I do wonder about is when Congress will actually do something remotely beneficial for the people in this country.

HTC1

...I know this is probably a great surprise to find me writing something 'on-topic' (well, I think so, anyway...)

Having now read a number of reports on this whole episode ...some of which even got as far as the Oz media (wow!)...I see NO mention by anyone, anywhere about some of the earlier and initial panics that seemed to be present regarding the legal status of existing Gibson guitars that used that illegal (?) wood...

there was a whole lot said at the time about the potential illegality of such instruments crossing country borders, and the responsibilty or otherwise liabilities of present and future owners of these instruments..

Has this issue (if it really EVER was one) been dealt with, or what... just found it interesting to see no further mention of these thoughts...

GZ... working hard towards Spring and the Almond Blossom Festival...

That's OK, I can save the drummer joke for later.



I don't think your media is any worse then ours. 99.9% of Americans wouldn't recognize your Prime Minister, and if they met her they'd probably ask her for a Foster's thinking they were being continental... Regardless of your part of the world the media prints what it's told to print. No worries.



Well, let's see. It took the the behemoth known as the US Department of Justice three years to push Gibson to the point where it "...acknowledged that it failed to act on information" that the ebony imported from Madagascar "may have violated" laws. Can we say tempest in a teacup?

IMHO, the possibility of confiscating potentially suspect instruments was merely a scare put out there by opponents of the Lacey Act. Granted, the Lacey Act, as it was amended in 2008, in part due to pressure from the domestic timber lobby, is over reaching and practicably unenforceable. Some common sense is called for in revising this Act, but this is the US Congress we're talking about here...in an election year...so don't wait by the phone for the call...



Again, this is unenforceable. Records on musical instrument content are extremely lax compared to something like the food industry. "Ingredients" are not disclosed on the package, as it were.

This strikes me, if it were to become policy, as the US Justice Department reverting to using a dunking stool to find witches. In order to identify the country of origin of the instrument wood in question said instrument will need to be disassembled, essentially destroyed, to test the material to determine age and place of origin. This does bring to mind another fine American tradition of a "fair trial and a quick hanging". Proving your innocence gains you nothing in this case.

My concern is not a concerted enforcement effort by the Justice Department, but the actions of one or two "dedicated" public servants. The idea of a government worker having sway on what happens to my instrument would be enough to keep me from bringing it to the United States.



I think the US Justice Department is happier that this is over then Gibson is. The last thing the Democrats want in an election year is to be seen as overly hostile to business.

For at least the next 5 months the Lacey Act will more than likely fall into still another fine American tradition of "Don't ask, don't tell".

In the long run enforcing the Lacey Act on individuals will be something akin to stopping Internet Piracy. There may be a high profile story pop up here and there, but rounding up all of the potentially guilty parties is just not economically feasible.

We're still fighting about where the money is going to come from to pay for health care reform. Do you really think the Justice Department has a special tap on financial resources to go after every Les Paul floating around out there that may have wood of questionable virtue?



Thanks for sharing that. We're moving towards Fall and the Evil Thing that follows it.

Happy Trails

Cynical One

I'm confused about this aspect of the Lacey Act. Let's say an American musician travels outside the U.S. and he takes with him his guitar which is made of protected wood(s). I'm under the impression that, upon his return, his guitar can & will be seized by customs; unless he can provide documentation that said guitar was made before the wood in question was placed on the protected list.

SO- specific to my situation, I'm using both Wenge & Cocobolo and some of these woods are on the list of protected species, but it depends on what country it's from; not all of it is protected. I haven't been able to get much of an answer from Mr. Google either; but I'd hate to sell someone a guitar only to have it get confiscated at some future date.

What gives?

-lpf3

l & r,

Actually, it's in our Constitution that no law can be made that, ipso facto, criminalizes an act or behavior. The gist of that is, if you are doing something that has no law prohibiting it, then you can not be arrested and charged with a crime if it later becomes proscribed by law. (It should be obvious that we're talking about past behavior - if you continue to do X, then you're now breaking the new law.)

However, like TSA agents, Customs and Immigration personnel are not known for their education levels, nor their ability to think in Real Time, if you get my drift. For that reason alone, I'd give it five (5) years for the word to get passed down from On High that guitars proven to be older than 2008 (or so) are not subject to checking the provenance of their materials.

That is, unless Dave Carroll breaks the ice for us! ;D


Best plan for travelers: Leave it home. Even if it's a bleepin' Squier, leave it home. When you get there, buy or borrow an axe, play your gig(s), and leave that there..... sell it, return it, burn it, whatever, but don't give The Brady Border Bunch an excuse, period.

That's my story, and I'm stickin' to it!





sumgai

While I understand the "Letter of the Law" exempts musical instruments transported for performance, I've also seen how the dictum of "your bundle of rights does not trump my bundle of rights" can play out. My faith in the Justice being blind has been replaced by Justice being a w[img src="http://i173.photobucket.com/albums/w51/fnulnu/nutz/smilies/censored.gif~original" class="smile"]e willing to happily accommodate those with the most money and influence.

As both SG and I have previously pointed out, it is front line Government workers that will make the initial decision on the disposition of your instrument in transit. I like the Post Office, but the rest of the Government can take a first class seat on the "B Ship". As the old saying goes, I wouldn't trust them to pour piss out of a boot with the directions on the heel.

I really believe we've seen the last extreme action under the Lacey Act for a while, at least until after the election. Depending on who takes the brass ring I would hazard to guess that most of the teeth will come out quietly and out of plain sight.

As far a builders, I believe your odds of getting zinged are in direct proportion with the size of your operation and political leanings and contributions.

Happy Trails

Cynical One