Find your diamond
Find your jewelry
shape
carat
color
clarity

Direct attack on pricescope!

Status
Not open for further replies. Please create a new topic or request for this thread to be opened.
L

Loengard

Rough_Rock
Joined
Apr 7, 2004
Messages
22
I just received the following e-mail from an online web vendor. I mentioned that it is important to me to have a good cut, and noted that I would use the cut advisor on pricescope.com (to show that I was not the most easygoing accepting customer). What followed was a direct attach on Pricescope.

Please give me your comments. Either this man has a point, or more likely, he feels threatened by the informed experts on the pricescope.com board.

Any comments?
1.gif

Peter

'Before you decide on the so called 'Ideal' cut kindly read our page 'Ideal cut' as this will explain why this type of cut is not as 'ideal' as its name suggests, in fact quite to the contrary. I will answer any of your questions concerning this if required.

This website, www.pricescope.com is not doing anyone any favours, in particular the consumer.

We sell perfectly cut selected diamonds to our clients, which look bigger and
sparkle just as well to the eye under all types of lighting conditions, as compared to this so called 'ideal' cut which is just a lot of over hyped and misleading rubbish.

Tolkowski, in his day, never did specify these over cut to high specification
parameters, he simply showed that any diamond within certain parameters will sparkle perfectly.

These people at pricescope are trying, with their hype, to change the true
meaning of what Tolkowski laid down, changing the goal posts so to speak. They do not adhere to the Tolkowski standards, in fact they are changing the standard altogether.

The 'Antwerp' cut, as it is called in the industry, has been produced for over
50 years, much appreciated and sought after amongst the world's leading jewellery manufacturers, and as far as beauty of the diamond is concerned, far outstrips this so called 'ideal' cut or for that matter the 'Hearts & Arrows' cut as well.

As far as pricings are concerned if pricescope is so important to you, kindly
select one of their diamonds, we will supply a better one at a far far better price as well.

We can supply this so called 'ideal' cut as well but we will most certainly not recommend it to any client.

We have many diamonds which will suit your requirements but before going any
further you will need to trust our professional expertise and vast experience as opposed to the ravings of such people at 'pricescope'.

We have been cutting diamonds, in Belgium, since the early 30's, at one time
we had over 600 cutters and purchasing 4 sights from DeBeers, this is why
I do get annoyed when people such as pricescope, through their slick hype,
peddle information which is a parody of the truth, of reality and are changing
the views of the consumer to an ugly, thickish looking stubby stone, which, may I add will sparkle perfectly, but will look, in many cases, at least 20% smaller than a beautifully cut 'Antwerp' cut which can be purchased cheaper as well.

Always happy to answer any further questions you may have.

Looking forward to your comments.
i>'
 
Hello Peter,

It is sad to see how established companies stop evolving.

Not only is this person attacking Pricescope, he is in direct contradiction with the latest studies of AGS, GIA, MSU and individuals like Bruce Harding, Gary Holloway, and so on. My apologies to anyone, that I might have forgotten in this list.

I wonder on what basis he claims that his stones look 20% bigger than an 'ideal cut', look better and are cheaper. It will be difficult to find someone confirming this.

I apologize for the rudeness and the ignorance of some of my fellow-countrymen.

Live long,

Paul
 
Thanks Loengard, for posting this message from a dinasaur.
Note they "once had.....2 million cutters"

The person most accountable for changing Tolkowsky was probably also Jasper Paulsen - a consumer.
Ask your dealer chappie to go to this website and read Tolkowsky and also use Jaspers calculator that allows you to identify many good crown and pavilion combinations:

http://www.folds.net/diamond/index.html
 
It is SO sad to see someone so afraid of consumer knowledge that they need to impugn the intergity that many have worked hard to get. Detractors will always be present in the face of innovation. Just look at Galileo. Thankfully, change has helped us see that the world is indeed round, and perhaps to this George fellow, the crown (and the world) will always be flat. Plus it's so much easier to argue something without facts and just mean words. Let's try using their facts, shall we?
11.gif


I noticed how he was touting his IDEAL cut, first as established by Tolkowski, who sets forth a 53-57.5% table, a .7 to 2.0 girdle thickness, a 14.4-16.2% crown height, a total depth of 59.9-63%, a crown angle of 33.7-35.8 degrees, and a pavillion angle of 40.5-41.5 degrees. His ideal cut (as included below DIRECTLY from his website) shows the revised "ideal" cut, as now nicknamed the Antwerp Cut.

This Antwerp Cut has tighter restriction of numbers and angles from the Tolkowski Cut, and I am curious what gave him comfort in changing the "ideal" measurements from Tolkowski and improving on his mathematical genius. Isuppose it's called technology and progress? Now he is complaining the following:

Tolkowski, in his day, never did specify these over cut to high specification
parameters, he simply showed that any diamond within certain parameters will sparkle perfectly.

Actually, the numbers have been found, and determined, granted they were wider than they are now. Hello, he WAS a mathematician. Most Math intensive people I know work with numbers, not with things that "sparkle perfectly". Plus the numbers I got where taken from the "so called Ideal cut parameters" on HIS OWN IDEAL CUT PAGE.

These people at pricescope are trying, with their hype, to change the true
meaning of what Tolkowski laid down, changing the goal posts so to speak. They do not adhere to the Tolkowski standards, in fact they are changing the standard altogether.

His picture of the Tolkoski cut next to the Antwerp Cut (which he SWEARS by) is actually a CHANGE on the Tolkowski cut. He did it himself! His favorite cut actually redefines beauty much more sharply than Tolkowski ever did! Look at the redefinition of the crown angle and table thresholds!

The 'Antwerp' cut, as it is called in the industry, has been produced for over
50 years, much appreciated and sought after amongst the world's leading jewellery manufacturers, and as far as beauty of the diamond is concerned, far outstrips this so called 'ideal' cut or for that matter the 'Hearts & Arrows' cut as well.

Well this made me laugh. He's saying that

1) PS is trying to change Tolkowski's cut, when we are actually seeing that his Antewerp Cut has already done that.

2) He is stating that we should continue to do what we did for years, as it has been good enough, why change it? If that's the case, why did Queen Victoria in around 1850 have the Koh-i-Noor recut from the traditional Indian diamond cut (for weight) to this crazy new cut that dropped the weight by 78cts!!! In India (the birthplace of the diamond) such cut stones where considered "beautiful", as well as some older stones throughout Europe where in the 1400's people wore diamonds in octahedral form, then rose cuts, cushion cuts. The newer cuts were being created to allow greater light return. It's called technology and progress. Also, then why did they improve on the Tolkowski cut in the first place? It's called technology and progress. By their arguments, we should be cutting octahedrals for rings, as it had been established LONGER than 50 years of the Antwerp cut, right?

3) He is saying that this ideal Antwerp cut is better than Hearts and Arrows? Ok, look between the numbers of the picture included and you can see the same exact nubers we use here at PS. We favor tables slightly smallerfrom 55-58, and we favor depths of 59-61. Still within his limits. So there will be stones that overlap both HIS ideal cut and those of PS's ideal cuts. We are basically quibbling over the crown heights and the table percents, right?

Well, why does he feel it was necessary to "change the meaning of what Tolkowski laid down", to decrease the crown, and increase the table. For appearances to the consumer. He sells you a stone that "looks" larger, wouldn't you want to buy something BIGGER for the same or less? Ahhh...and they are saying that an Antwerp cut can be cheaper? Why? Maybe because when cut factors into price, an Antwerp stone will be reduced in price over an "ideal" stone because of it's CUT and non-adherenece to certain cut standards for brilliance and fire.

So, it looks bigger for the money, costs less, and is an older cut standard that has been around for longer than PS's "ideal cut". That says, they are trying to fool the eye and like to take shortcuts to a well cut stone for it's carat weight. They have a discounted item that if TRULY the superior product, should sell at a premium, BUT instead sells at a cut rate to attract more consumers. Also it shows me that adherence to an old cut should be that anything cut to Tolkowski should be just fine. Wait, let's improve it to the Antwerp Ideal, ok wait Let's refine those parameters a bit more and get the Hearts & Arrows. Ironically progress should stop at their cut, so they can make a profit. But, I doubt too many people here (looking for the BEST in diamond performance) will want a badly cut cheap stone in an old cut. If they do, they know where to find them!

perfectcut1.jpg
 
....And here is the Tolkowski cut picture sitting directly above his own "Antwerp cut".

idealc1.jpg
 
Actually Nic, Tolkowsky never gave a range.
He published some #'s for a single set of proportions. What you have there is yet another interpretation
1.gif
from AGS.
 
Absolutely right Cut Nut. My oversight!
15.gif
Seems he never clearly DEFINED all his proportions, so many of his details where left to estimates, as found on THIS WEBSITE:

Taken from the site:

In the "Diamond design" paper by M.Tolkowsky one may find the following parameters of calculated diamond cut: the crown angle - 34.5°, the pavilion angle - 40.75°, the table size - 53%. However, the author has not indicated such important parameters as the girdle thickness, the star length, the lower girdle length, and culet size (ðàçìåð êàëåòòû). It is impossible to unambiguously define the cut shape without knowing the exact values of these parameters. In the present work, the "Tolkowsky cut parameters" are understood as the two angles and the table size indicated by him. The other cut parameters are the following:

- the girdle thickness -1% (at the narrow part), 2.7% (at the thick part);
- the star length is adjusted so that the table and the star facets make two squares if the diamond is viewed in the face-up position, along the main axis (for the Tolkowsky cut parameters - 0.37);
- the lower girdle length - 0.82;
- the pointed culet.
 
Thanks for all your comments!
Here's my reply to the mail of the guy:

------------

I did examine the ideal cut section of your website prior to requesting a price quote. However, I found many conflicting opinions on what a good 'cut' constitutes, and have found that the ideal cut is seen as more 'modern', whatever that means, than the Antwerp cut. In the end, I guess a large part of it boils down to taste, some customers preferring certain cuts over other ones.

What seems to me sure though, it that a standard so established as ideal cut cannot be completely without its merits. It at least constitutes a good 'compromise'. That having said, I would indeed prefer the ideal cut, to which my preference goes, if you can supply it.

Concerning your comments on the pricescope.com website, I'd like to point out that, despite any negative feelings you might have towards this website and forum, it is indeed almost singlehandedly responsible for making consumers more knowledgeable about diamonds. An educated consumer is a new fact internet vendors have to take into account, and I for one (and I think you will agree with me on that) prefer that vastly over the old situation: jeweller tells consumer that diamond is good, consumer, by lack of information, has to agree. Sometimes this turns out beneficial for the consumer, sometimes not.

The pricescope.com forum is a non-commercial place, where there are people with high expertise and connections to the industry and appraisal labs. These people spend time giving expert advice, without any gain to get. Their independence makes their advice most valuable for me. Although you might not agree with all of their views, your comments came on a bit strong against them. Live and let live, I say.
 
They have an interesting way of doing business. I certainly like the comfort of the return policy of the Pricescope dealer I went with. I received the ring last Wednesday, if I was not pleased with it I could have returned it immediately. I popped the question last Friday evening and if my 2B was disappointed by the stone, we still could have returned it. And now if my 2B comes to her senses in the next three weeks we can still return it!
1.gif
 
Peter,




Interesting post. It puzzles me when business owners spend energy on criticizing others rather than building up the merits and differentiating their own business. I wonder if these guys realize what they do to their own perception when they espouse so much negativity, regardless of whether they think they are right?




It appears that this fellow is very set in his ways and unlikely to change his views. I agree with what you're doing. Let him put his money where his mouth is and have him supply you a diamond of your specifications at a "far far better price". He can even show you an Antwerp cut next to it so you can decide which one you like better.




Although I don't know how long I could put up with a vendor that sells his goods by critizing others.




Good luck and let us know how it turns out.
 
Hey it worked for me! Thanks Cut Nut...I am on a mission, and I will read this, eventually making my way to understanding it...
9.gif
naughty.gif


Thanks so much for the link!!!
9.gif
naughty.gif
 
So many excellent comments have been made already on this thread but one statement made by this guy made all of our defenses rise up and that was:

----------------
On 5/7/2004 3:41:47 AM Loengard wrote:


We sell perfectly cut selected diamonds to our clients...----------------
Click to expand...


Because here in the United States the Federal Trade Commission would be all over this guy for saying that his diamonds are "perfectly cut" because in reality there is no such thing as anything "perfect" derived from nature. Our arguement being that "perfect" leads us to believe that the crown angle is EXACTLT 34.5 degrees or otherwise consistent ALL the way around the diamond and the pavilion angle of course is perfectly even as well... If his production was "perfect" then every diamond he produced would be exactly the same as every other diamond he produced, after all, were that not the case, then not all of his production would be "perfect" and on and on we could go.

One of the things we always find amusing about people in the industry who seem so afraid of the obviously superior visual performance of a precisely cut ideal cut diamond is that this argument always comes from people who don't sell ideal cut diamonds! Interestingly enough, most of us who primarily sell precisely cut ideal cut diamonds don't seem to have any problem acknowledging that it is "possible" to achieve a similar and often equal level of visual performance out of a non-ideal cut diamond... However, it is more likely that you will find the visual performance that you seek in a precisely manufactured ideal cut diamond FASTER than you will sifting through the thousands of non-ideal cut diamonds that are floating about out there... Which is precisely why we focus our efforts on ideal cut diamonds, we simply don't have the time to sift through all of the non-ideal cut diamonds to find the few that meet our expectations in terms of brilliance, dispersion and scintillation - but they ARE out there! How challenged this jeweler must be with the quality of his own product to be so obviously challenged and defensive about such a simple concept.
 
I think it's odd that a jeweler is that resistant to ideal-cut stones. The jeweler we purchased from wasn't particularly nuts about ideal cuts, either -- he didn't think they were quite worth the premium for the average buyer, and he preferred the old "nice 60-60" cut for the money; still, since we went in there looking for ideal cut diamonds, that's all he showed us! He never once tried to push a 60-60 on us at all, and even remarked at the great light return you got from ideal-cut stones. He was able to express his preference without making me feel stupid about my preference. Further, even though he wasn't really crazy about the HCA and wasn't sure if it was a legitimate way of grading stone cut, he was more than happy to provide us with information with which we could evaluate our potential stone!


He was a shrewed salseman, that's for sure!


It's too bad that other jewelers aren't able to express their disagreement with ideal cut/H&A/HCA without conceding that their own preferences may actually differ from that of some of their customers.
 
This response is not related to Ideal cut but to the whole "trust" issue. I indeed trusted the B&M that sold me the first diamond I ever purchased back in 1993 for my then girlfriend's e-ring. I looked through a loupe and microscope, looked at many diamonds, I had no idea on what the gradings meant. I ended up with a stone that looked pretty and squeezed into my college student budget. I continued to buy from this B&M over the years, I went to see them when I began my 10 year upgrade project. Well, I also saw other jewelers for this project too, I won't bore you all again with the details of the new project and diamonds search... See here: https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/my-diamond-buying-experiences-a-must-read-for-budding-fiances-and-beginners-long.14907/

For many reasons I ended up buying the new main stone online. The B&M I ended up selecting to make the new ring popped the old stone out of the old ring so that he could get a better look at it and better understand the requirements for a matching pear. Well the original pear ended up being clearly one color grade and 2-3 clarity grades lower than I paid for back in 1993. It was also difficult to match a pear that looked the same as the original since the original was cut so bad! Too shallow and too wide!! I even wonder if the stone was switched. Pretty bad uh. We did find a fairly close match but it is so much nicer looking, but the sentimental value of the original pear is great and had to be used in the upgrade project.

So it irks me when I read these posts about trusting jewelers to such an extreme, an educated consumer creates a different marketplace and trust needs to be built with disclosure and not blindly.
 
Sad that many in the trade demand that you trust their eyes and instincts on stones when in reality you know NOTHING about them, or their tastes or tendancies,a nd usually ive versa.

Trust takes communication, open and flowing freely. Trust takes proving yourself, and trust takes a leap of faith. Sadly, If you can't communicate with your customer on what THEY want, and how THEIR tastes will effect their purchases, then how can there be trust for the vendor to chose your stone or tell YOU what is beautiful?!
angryfire.gif


I have few people I trust so implicity for such a sentimental and momentus purchase with our hard earned money. Even those I trust, I don't agree with their taste, or even can say they understand mine! So when I hear that clients should TRUST a particular person, sight unseen, I laugh.

It's like walking into an art gallery and asking a seller to sell you something for several thousand that will be the forefront of your livingroom. Will you like it? Maybe, but at this point, you lean to, because it's yours now, and you can't hardly return art...(try it...)

It's that personal to me!. And the fact that someone is offended by a person describing clearly what they want is ludicrous. In a world of customizable sneakers and salads, why not something as permanent and personal as a diamond?!
 
In the end, an educated consumer is the best possible thing to happen to the any INDUSTRY.

If poeple know what they want, how much it should cost, and where to find it, then reputable dealers will THRIVE and less than reputable dealers will be out in the cold.

I pick on my very first diamond (installed into a simple band) this coming Wednesday for my gal. I gave her a chance to see it loose and sparkling in all it's glory. She AND I will know if we are getting something altogether different than what I bargained and paid for.

That dude in London sounded defensive and threatened to me...

What do I know though? I only negotiate heavy construction contracts for a living.
 
I see two different issues here.


First, the guy who sent you the letter was completely unprofessional in his message and it's delivery.




Ideal Cut or H&A diamonds are indeed more expensive to produce- and arguably, better than 60/60 diamonds ( not aguable by me, but that's another story).


The reasons for the extra cost having to do with reduced yeild and higher cost of cutting are completely valid.


Many people prefer the look of in Ideal Cut.


Calling the preference for H&A stones "Hype" completely weakens any point the person might have.


If this seller had a selection of H&A ( AGS 0 cut) diamonds, they would need to charge what other sellers of these stones charge- and generally speaking these stones bring higher prices than 60/60 diamonds.




But that's the other problem.


Just as the guy is completely out of line by refering to H&A as "Hype"- so are those people that dismiss a 60/60 as some sort of "old fashioned" diamond.




I think there's room for folks to like either- and there are very good arguments for either H&A or 60/60 as a standard for cutters to strive for.


I think it's a mistake to off handedly dismiss either cut.
 
David, you know I respect you and your RADIANTS...
9.gif
but I still believe that the evolution of the cut is headed toward optimizing light return. The H&A and others like it are doing that. A 60/60 stone can be lovely, as an OEC, rose cut, regular flanders, Old miner cut, etc...BUT they are not as much optimal in optics, as we can argue many lovely radiants aren't either, but we still love them.

It's definately subject to taste, and the new "ideal" doesn't make the "older" cuts useless, just a different way of perceiving beauty!
 
----------------
On 5/7/2004 5:11:11 PM Nicrez wrote:





David, you know I respect you and your RADIANTS...
9.gif
but I still believe that the evolution of the cut is headed toward optimizing light return. The H&A and others like it are doing that. A 60/60 stone can be lovely, as an OEC, rose cut, regular flanders, Old miner cut, etc...BUT they are not as much optimal in optics, as we can argue many lovely radiants aren't either, but we still love them.

It's definately subject to taste, and the new 'ideal' doesn't make the 'older' cuts useless, just a different way of perceiving beauty!
----------------



Thanks Nicrez!

As far as "the evolution of the cut"- from what I see hrer in NY, there are indeed more cutters going for 57% table, this is true.



Yet, there are still many well respected houses who continue to produce amazing 60/60 diamonds.



Transforming rough diamonds into polished gems is an art. The decisions that are made with the rough are based on many different factors.



For houses manfacturing to ideal AGS 0 cut grade these decisons are based on getting exactly that. No question the newer technology plays the greatest roles in these houses.



Thankfully, the "old fashioned" art of cutting RBC's to 60/60 ain't going anywhere. I really don't expect that to change.





How many people born well after their breakup love the Beatles? Newer is not always better.







 
talking about amazing large table diamonds I saw one the other day that was awesome.
Not in the same way as a ideal cut h&a but awesome in its own right.

It was a wide crowned shallow cut that looked like a wagon wheel looking down into it.
It wasnt very bright but it was sparky and looked 10 miles deep like looking into an asscher.

The spokes looked like thin arrows and the heads blended into the shafts.

It was very kewl looking.

No it didnt have anywhere near the light return of a ideal cut h&a and to be honest it looked a little dark but it drew the eye deep into the diamond in a way that made it hard to look away.
I suspect finding another like it would be harder than finding an ideal cut h&a by a large margin but it did drive home the point that there are other awesome cut rounds out there than the ideal cut h&a's.
 
That sounds awesome!


But let's be clear- when we're talking about 60% table diamonds, we are NOT talking about "large tabled diamonds"


A well cut diamond, with the proper crown angles and 60% table 60% depth can be, in my opinion, the picture of what a diamond should look like




To me a 57% table looks too small- but of course we all know it's not too small , as a general rule.


Someone used to looking at H&A diamonds might find the same thing in reverse- maybe they think a 60% table looks large. But no one familiar with diamond cutting- even those proponents of H&A- would call 60% "large" to a detrimental degree, as a rule.




In a round diamond anything above 62% table is likely to have a unnatractive appearance- or possibly a fish-eye
 
----------------
On 5/7/2004 2:48:25 PM weemodin wrote:


I think it's odd that a jeweler is that resistant to ideal-cut stones. The jeweler we purchased from wasn't particularly nuts about ideal cuts, either -- he didn't think they were quite worth the premium for the average buyer, and he preferred the old 'nice 60-60' cut for the money; still, since we went in there looking for ideal cut diamonds, that's all he showed us! He never once tried to push a 60-60 on us at all, and even remarked at the great light return you got from ideal-cut stones.
----------------
Click to expand...


It's nice that the jeweler listened to your needs and focused on finding diamonds for you within your preferred parameters instead of trying to push what he had on you...

The "trick" with the "60/60 ideal cuts" of days gone by is that depending on the crown and pavilion angle measurements a 60/60 could be as nice as AGS-2 Very Good in proportions or as poor as AGS-10 Very Poor and so many jewelers tend to overlook this fact because all they got from the concepth is that a 60/60 is "ideal cut"... Don't rely on a myth, get the measurements for the rest of the puzzle and then you can make a decision based on facts.
 
David,
point taken.
I have no idea what the crown was or the depth or any other measurement and it was mounted in a plat ring.
It was odvious by looking at it that it wasnt whats considered an ideal cut diamond here.

It LOOKED like it had a large crown in relation to its diameter and from the side LOOKED shallower in relation to the depth than most other diamonds Iv looked at.

My point was and from a self admitted cut nut in training that just because its not an ideal cut h&a diamond it can still be awesome.
Most of the diamonds iv looked at have not been well cut because that is what is available in my area and compared to them the ideal cut h&a diamonds do blow them away.
But im not in the camp that it has to be an ideal cut h&a to be an awesome round diamond anymore.
Does that make sence?
 
wavey.gif
Thanks Loengard for rising my BP with that letter - I need it!

Now, why does that kind of message feels like someone is trying to insult my wits ?! It probably is a bit much to ask every diamond retailer to develop his own critical opinion on Tolkowsky's approach and it's followers ( = a MA in applied math ?)...

read.gif
However, I am just amzed that samples of nicely cut diamonds (whatever the trade may accept as such) are almost never available. At least for H&A rounds and branded fancies there is a picture on the poster, but otherwise? Otherwise, there is practically nothing available to give a visual impression of what cut should deliver.

Buyers could walk in the store with an Iscope, but I suspect that those who choose to believe in the powers of that tool would buy online anyway. Could one get a reasonable visual "benchmark" in the form of a carefully proportioned simmulant ? Fancies included?
 
David you wrote somewhere this statement on the same topic:

"OK- First let me say that my opinion is NOT based on scientific fact. This will surely put me at odds with certain people.
Is diamond grading "scientific"?
Is is to the extent that there are specific tests to check if a diamond is actually a diamond.
But much of what constitutes diamond grading is observation. By definition, this is not objectifiable to a degree which could be considered scientific."

We had the top people from AGS, HRD, IGI and also EGL USA, Sarin, ISee2 etc and the finest sightholder Indian manufacturers (who all had or won or kept sights because of their good work) and other top manufacturers like the guy that has an 8ct average production and Gabi Tolkowsky, HoF etc in Moscow for a scientific study on quantifying human observation 2 weeks ago.
GIA have spent $30M or $80Million depending on who you believe etc etc.

You would be correct in saying that this is not an easy thing to acheive, but it is being done. And the people who are doing it either post here or because of their positions they can only lurk.
 
You know, as much as I can't stand the position taken by the "dinosaur", I have to ask this -

Isn't his email to Peter supposed to be a private communication?

I know it violates email "etiquette" to post such a communication without first getting the permission of the author, but does it violate anything else?

Has Peter opened himself up to any potential legal problems by posting this communication on an international forum without first getting permission from the author?
 


----------------
On 5/8/2004 12:26:18 AM Richard Sherwood wrote:





You know, as much as I can't stand the position taken by the 'dinosaur', I have to ask this -

Isn't his email to Peter supposed to be a private communication?

I know it violates email 'etiquette' to post such a communication without first getting the permission of the author, but does it violate anything else?

Has Peter opened himself up to any potential legal problems by posting this communication on an international forum without first getting permission from the author?
----------------
Click to expand...

Possibly.......depends on the provisions of copyright law in Belgium.



I doubt it would escalate to that level, though. A more likely scenario is the author would demand the removal of his letter from the forum. If that demand was met, that would likely be the end of it.
 
Richard nope he can share it with who ever he wants legaly in the US anyway.
It has been ruled that its like a letter in most casess that the reciever can do whatever they want with it.
Including "posting it on the wall" for lots of people to read.
So if it is legal to share the communication if it was a letter its legal to share an email they have the same restraints and restrictions.

Most other countries follow the same pattern with it.
 


----------------
On 5/8/2004 12:42:30 AM strmrdr wrote:





Richard nope he can share it with who ever he wants legaly in the US anyway.
It has been ruled that its like a letter in most casess that the reciever can do whatever they want with it.----------------



Richard, I wouldn't take the above statement to the bank if I were you. Stormrider, I think someone's given you poor information. Sending a letter to someone doesn't give the receiver any copyright rights under U.S. law.



You say it's been ruled......where? Can you cite the ruling that says so? I'd like to see it.



In the U.S. "....copyright protects all original works of authorship, including such things as personal letters and corporate memoranda, from the moment they are first fixed in a tangible form."

Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies. Please create a new topic or request for this thread to be opened.
GET 3 FREE HCA RESULTS JOIN THE FORUM. ASK FOR HELP
Jewelry Blog
PriceScope-Concierge-Ad
Find prime cuts.
Top