ddavid wrote:
RustyBug,
So, you aren't an attorney and the FTC website you referenced has a disclaimer that it is not actual law either? What are you using other than the Layman's opinion approach? Do you have you have any additional training, authority, or experience that makes your layman's/non-binding opinion any more valid than the next poster?
I thought I addressed that early in the thread, but to be a bit more specific:
I was formally trained by Indiana State University and the U.S. military how to read, interpret, inspect, cite and enforce the CFR's for the U.S. Navy in the 1980's. Additionally, I have also been a State Official responsible for government contract oversight in the 1990's, and a defense sub-contractor consultant to the U.S. Army that was required to comply with the CFR's and FAR in the 2000's as well.
Still, not a lawyer, but trained to be an SME in the CFR's is way more than a layman ... certainly experienced enough to redirect this matter to the CFR's and the statutes ... and to know that a layman's approach to this legal matter is entirely inappropriate.
Given how much continued disdain there is for the current law in this thread ... those who are of a differing opinion could band together and redirect an effort to lobby congress to make the changes to the way you see them ... but that's not going to happen because it's way easier for people to just continue 'gunslinging'.
ddavid wrote:
Would the "Spirit of the Law" be irrelevant then?
I never said the "spirit of the law" was irrelevant.
I pointed out that people were suggesting their own opinion of what the 'spirit of the law' was without researching the actual history of the law's development to correctly ascertain the 'spirit of the law' and pointed out that you need to go back at least as far as the Tariff Act of 1930.
Unless your research thread through the CFR's and statutes takes you that far back, you can't have a proper assessement of the 'spirit of the law'. I have gone that far back in my research on the matter ... although I stated that my research was incomplete, it was primarily because I have not vetted the legal definition of every term en route of that research ... a good lawyer would and charge accordingly to do so. But I'm not a lawyer, so you get it for free.
I'll be traveling soon, so I'll have to hit the "Pause" button a little bit. I'm sure several people will be glad.
BTW, I'm sworn to defend the Constitution ... orders ... regulations ....
If we were talking about lighting, I'd probably walk away from the banter and opinion ... but this one compels me to defend the laws of the United States of America.
I swore I would, so I do ... like I said before, "it's a truth thing".
Yes, it is a 'legal' thing (my point all along as to why people should not be imposing their 'gunslinging' opinion onto it instead of researching to understand it) ... and that is the truth ... so people should adhere to the law (or seek to change it as provided for by the Constitution) rather than bash & cry foul when someone makes an honest & legitimately compliant effort to do so.
Of course, the right to address the U.S. Congress kinda requires that you actually have a representative from your state in the United States Congress ... minor detail.
c.d.embrey wrote:
Sorta like most of this thread is ABSURD !Gotta love internet forums ...
Absurd? .. unfortunate is more like it.
PCB is one American company still trying to offer an innovative quality product sold at a fair price and backed by first class American customer support while adhering to the "Made in America" regulations. By any measure the company should be applauded.
To the vocal yet few detractors .. take your cheap shots from the cheap seats while you can, in a couple of years you'll be dealing with a Mr. Chin, and missing Paul quite a bit. And only then will you begin to think about just how shortsighted your current opinions were.
There is a smile on someones future face in Shenzhen, and probably an unemployment cheque in the future of those choosing to unfairly criticize the practices of honest American companies.
RustyBug wrote:
I was formally trained by Indiana State University and the U.S. military how to read, interpret, inspect, cite and enforce the CFR's for the U.S. Navy in the 1980's. Additionally, I have also been a State Official responsible for government contract oversight in the 1990's, and a defense sub-contractor consultant to the U.S. Army that was required to comply with the CFR's and FAR in the 2000's as well.
In your professional career have you ever certified compliance without inspecting an item or examining a parts manifest? Perhaps if someone disassembled a Vababond you could give your opinion on whether it complied with the regulations or played fast and loose with them?
And you are correct, If disassembly shows a 90% Chinese component content and you still rule that it complies with US regulations then maybe we should demand more accuracy from our regulations. Perhaps this is bigger than PCB's products, as I am quite sure that other countries would not tolerate this level of subterfuge.
Mike Mahoney wrote:
PCB is one American company still trying to offer an innovative quality product sold at a fair price and backed by first class American customer support while adhering to the "Made in America" regulations. By any measure the company should be applauded.
You mistake a popular, reasonably priced product with compliance with regulations. If any product with 90% foreign parts can be screwed together here and still called "Made In America" then Americans are foolishly believing that things are less bad than they are.
Edit again:
My point is not preference to Buy American, it's simply to know more accurately what one IS buying. (Take for instance the Swiss Made marking on watches or the Geneva seal which are very precisely regulated.) Germany. France. Canada. Japan. Italy. All of these countries have very specific regulations as to what constitutes "Made In THERE"
ddavid wrote:
All of these countries have very specific regulations as to what constitutes "Made In THERE"
As does the U.S. ... yet you continue refusing to acknowledge those regulations. You can't have it both ways ... that's rather hypocritical.
Your gunslingin' is kinda shootin' yourself in the foot.
The fact that the U.S. has more than one qualifying criteria and you are being errantly hyperfocused on only the one issue that you're imposing your opinion on, rather than the law is also indicative of your unwillingness to be factual and objective.
Furthermore ... why don't you provide us with the other countries' specific regulations. I have already done so for the U.S. (even if you have refused to look them up or learn their definitions or study their history) so quit sqawkin' and pony up the goods.
Yes, that is the sound of a friendly gauntlet being tossed.
In the 1980's a Japanese telecommunications company, which had a distribution agreement with one of the regional bell operating companies, sent the piece parts for their equipment to an assembly plant in Texas so they could comply with the Made In America Requirement for government contracts. Nothing was manufactured in Texas, it was an assembly process. All the engineering, design and manufacturing was accomplished in Japan.
Based on comments from PCB, it appears that the VML is at least as compliant as the Japanese telecom equipment and probably much more so. Let's get back to lighting discussions rather than trade law.
ddavid wrote:
My point is not preference to Buy American, it's simply to know more accurately what one IS buying.
Why? Does it really matter where the components are manufactured?
The vendor (in this case Alien Bees) would have done due diligence on their suppliers and are comfortable enough with the quality to put their brand name on it. That's what you're buying, and that's the important thing.
And in such an increasingly complex and fluid global supply chain good luck to anyone wanting to nail down where anything REALLY comes from, in particular from some of the newer, less regulated, and quickly growing Asian economies.
So I ask you again ... why?
Would you not buy a product that had components sourced from a particular country?
Can you tell the difference between a Korean and a German nut & bolt?
My point is not preference to Buy American, it's simply to know more accurately what one IS buying. (Take for instance the Swiss Made marking on watches or the Geneva seal which are very precisely regulated.) Germany. France. Canada. Japan. Italy. All of these countries have very specific regulations as to what constitutes "Made In THERE"
Do they? Apparently you have those regulations at hand to be able to make such a dramatically specific assertion. Can you share those links?
And to those vocal few choosing to do a component source audit on a battery pack also extend this same rigorous examination to their other purchases? I don't think so, simply because you don't have the time or capability to do it. Which really makes me wonder about their motivation in choosing this particular product to put under the microscope.
Paul Buff wrote:
If the FTC doesn't know what the law is
It's not that the FTC doesn't know what the law is, but rather:
1) The information on the referenced FTC website does not provide all the pertintent laws and statutes in their entirety (hence the disclairmer).
2) The website does not constitute legal authority (i.e. someone who can make a ruling).
3) The website does not provide for the terminology to be properly defined in historical & legal context.
This leaves the lay reader to making their own assumptions (typically errant, in lieu of proper research) as to what certain terms legally mean. Much of the basis of law is rooted in the specific definition of terms. Without these terms being clearly defined in their legal context, discussions are doomed to become circular nebulae. This is so much a part of law that training in Latin has historically been a fundamental requirement ... which I also have (1970's) btw.
As mentioned several times before, this legal matter that was raised by the OP's valid question is well beyond the scope of this forum ... not the least of which is the long list of required terminology definitions as one moves through the trail of pertinent CFR's and statutes. For this reason alone, it is inappropriate and folly to apply layman opinion, logic and thinking to this legal matter.
I do expect however, that the ruling authorities (which the website is not) of the FTC do know what the law is, complete with an appropriate understanding of basic and specific legal terminology, the complex and correlating CFR's and statutes, the history and intent of the law necessary for correctly ascertaining the 'spirit of the law' ... as well as a vast collection of case studies and rulings from which precedence has been established (some of which I have reviewed also).
Without all the above pieces presented (which I won't be providing this forum) it would seem impossible to satisfy those intent on gunslinging just because they still have bullets to spray around. In light of what has been provided and explained in good faith, continued assertions of subterfuge and general bashing of PCB are wreckless, irresponsible and wrong ... ethically, morally and in some regard even legally where they are done so with such continued blatant disdain & disregard for regard the law, were it not for limited-purpose public figure rulings which may afford additional lattitude for 'cheap shots'.
I am quite certain that those intent on 'gunslinging' just because they can will not be swayed by anything more. I surmise that even a favorable ruling from the Supreme Court would leave them with a sour taste in their mouth and subequent banter regarding the inappropriateness of its ruling would ensue. Such as it is, much of what has been provided hasn't been solely for swaying the gunslingers, but for those watching from the stands as well. I do hope that there has been some educational benefit beyond the typical entertainment value.
I have a considerate degree of respect for the forums that Fred has provided us (and the multitude of FM'ers) and try to conduct accordingly with his expectations of FM'ers being 'above board'. I enjoy the bevy of photographic knowledge & passion that exists from FM'ers around the world. There is much that I've learned from those who know way more than I and I have simply tried to respectfully reciprocate to the members of FM in kind regarding an unusual area that I happen to have a modicom of experience, training and knowledge in.
So to all the silent FM'ers out there, thinking of you too, when I say ... FM Rocks. !!!
Good question from the OP ... looking forward to getting the VML when it becomes available.
Mike Mahoney wrote:
Why? Does it really matter where the components are manufactured?
Well, the big "Made in USA" sticker on the front of the item being discussed is the reason for that, it's pretty simple.
The vendor (in this case Alien Bees) would have done due diligence on their suppliers and are comfortable enough with the quality to put their brand name on it. That's what you're buying, and that's the important thing.
What version are the Einsteins up to now?
Would you not buy a product that had components sourced from a particular country?
Can you tell the difference between a Korean and a German nut & bolt?
The question is not one of whether you can tell the difference, the question is about whether you can fool people into thinking that it's a USA-made bolt.
miccullen wrote:
The question is not one of whether you can tell the difference, the question is about whether you can fool people into thinking that it's a USA-made bolt.
Those can be distinguished quite easily: Korean and german bolts can be used internationally while US bolts come in weird imperial sizes which are outdated and almost forgotten everywhere else. ;-)
ddavid wrote:
If any product with 90% foreign parts can be screwed together here and still called "Made In America" then Americans are foolishly believing that things are less bad than they are.
