Direct attack on pricescope!

[Rhino]

It is interesting reading this letter because it clearly represents a different school of thought and perhaps one that is the most popular within the trade. A school of thought that (if you've been in this trade any period of time) we *all* subscribed to.




I can't remember exactly where I read this but almost everytime I hear a seminar concerning "Internet sales" within our trade alot of times it's a seminar teaching jewelers how to combat this and answer objections, etc. Why fight it and just not flow with it? When we started up back in 1998 on the web we never even heard of Hearts & Arrows and our online inventory primarily consisted of 60/60's and many stones with more wacky combinations than that!




I have to admit. When I first heard of H&A the first word that came to my mind was "gimmick"!




Robin/Todd, Rich, Brian...when did you guys start really *seeing the light*? Can you name a time you can remember that was your turning point? I know the net has really changed the way we do things now as compared to 5 years ago (heck... even a month ago!). R/T ... didn't you guys *first* have a store then closed it for net only then went back? Curious.




Peace,

 

[strmrdr]

Al:
US vs microsoft federal appeals court ruled that email has no more expectations of privacy than a letter and no less.
Therefore the same rules apply.
There have been other cases that is the one im familiar with from following the case.

This case has a ton of case law references if you want to look into it more.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=wa&vol=2001_app/19304-7&invol=3

None of the above is legal advice consult an attorney licenced to practice in your area :}

http://public.findlaw.com/internet/nolo/ency/286D456E-73C7-414A-B174343E0225C4C8.html

 

[fire&ice]

I have no idea if the law has tighten or changed since 2001. ...BUT... email is not protected. PERIOD. Believe me, I had a friend spend many a money to find that out. I have been told it's akin to a cell phone right now.

 

[aljdewey]

Storm and F&I: I think you are confusing the laws involved here. You are saying that letters/emails are not protected under *privacy* laws. (And Storm, more directly, the case you referred to deals with whether the communication is "private" or protected and thereby surpressable as evidence, which has nothing to do with copyright.)




Copyright law is a completely different kettle of fish. It deals with the right to reproduce and distribute, and the copyright owner has *exclusive* rights to these activities.




(No one should consider the above to be legal advice.)

 

[diamondsbylauren]

----------------
On 5/7/2004 10:48:24 PM Cut Nut wrote:





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.


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

I guess it's almost like a chicken and egg question.

My point is: it's still up to the people cutting the rough to make decisions- GIA, AGS, HRD, IGI and also EGL USA, Sarin, ISee2 simply observe the work of the cutters.

The technology of grading diamonds by machine was perfected quite a while ago. Yet GIA still uses humans to grade diamonds.

Yes, it's clear a lot of cutters are following this trend of technology in cutting- as evidenced by the manufacturers present in Moscow, and at other meetings elsewhere around the world. Still, this is NOT every cutter by any means. Currently many cutters still choose to produce 60/60's.

In spite of conferences and education, is always the dollars that drive the decisions in cutting diamonds.

I also respect the work being done by Garry and folks like him tremendously, as well as folks like GOG that carry these stones. Any shopper who is put off by a salesperson calling H&A "hype" is done a disservice and should walk out the store.

Thanks to the many educated people who post here and other places, people can learn about the what to look for in the cut of a diamond- and that's a greatt thing.

I'm an "alternative" thinker- hopefully this would prove to illuminate the fine points. It's really not a black and white issue.

 

[Loengard]

Thank you all for your informative comments.
It was in no way my intent to damage the reputation of the particular internet vendor, which is why I modified my original post and removed his name and website address.
I was just amazed by how fervently he attacked pricescope and thought that if he feels so strongly by his arguments, maybe he had a point.

As to the copyright laws, interesting discussion.

I actually am an attorney under Belgian law in intellectual property rights, and there are (from a copyright point of view, privacy wise I see no issue for the reasons already set out above) two questions to consider here.

Firstly, was the original mail by the vendor protected? For protection under Belgian law (and this is more strict than common law), the work has to be creative, as opposed to the UK / US doctrine of sweat of the brow (i.e. if you put work in it, you get protection). As the vendor merely stated his professional opinion, the work as such was arguably not creative, thus not entitled to copyright protection (which in continental law is actually called author's rights, to stress the creativity of the individual author over the investments made).

Secondly, if the work would have been protected, could I divulge it. For several reasons I could. Firstly, an exception to copyright is the right to criticise and review. Secondly, another exception is the right to report events. Both exceptions arguably apply here.

Hope this clears the copyright issues up

. Of course, none of the above counts as legal advice and I waive all my liabilities etc etc (standard lawyer liability disclaimer

).

Once again, it was in no way my opinion to hurt anyone's reputation, and at least the vendor clearly indicated that the pricescope.com way to look at cuts (i.e. ideal cuts are the only way to go) is no more sensible than to say that ideal cuts are just a 'gimmick'. The truth, as always, lies in the middle.

 

[fire&ice]

----------------
On 5/8/2004 4:05:36 PM aljdewey wrote:


Storm and F&I: I think you are confusing the laws involved here. You are saying that letters/emails are not protected under *privacy* laws. (And Storm, more directly, the case you referred to deals with whether the communication is 'private' or protected and thereby surpressable as evidence, which has nothing to do with copyright.)


Copyright law is a completely different kettle of fish. It deals with the right to reproduce and distribute, and the copyright owner has *exclusive* rights to these activities.


(No one should consider the above to be legal advice.)


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

No Al, the specific suit looked into involved a third party copying several emails & distributing *those* emails at *will*. NOTHING could be done about it. Emails are not protected. And parts ended up in a publication.

That said, I was morally outraged.

 

[aljdewey]

F&I, I obviously don't know the particulars of the situation in your instance. It could have been that "nothing could be done about it" means there wasn't enough financial incentive for the copyright owner to make the infringer cease. It could have been something else.




It would be a mistake, though, to think that one instance like that should be interpreted to mean that copyright law doesn't apply to emails or letters. Trust me on this one. I'm not guessing on this---it's my field of work.

 

[fire&ice]

----------------
On 5/9/2004 9:14:32 PM aljdewey wrote:


F&I, I obviously don't know the particulars of the situation in your instance. It could have been that 'nothing could be done about it' means there wasn't enough financial incentive for the copyright owner to make the infringer cease. It could have been something else.


It would be a mistake, though, to think that one instance like that should be interpreted to mean that copyright law doesn't apply to emails or letters. Trust me on this one. I'm not guessing on this---it's my field of work.


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

Nope, the person harmed had deep, deep, deep pockets & the will to pursue. I'm not guessing either - it's messy with no clear line.

Edited to add: this wasn't an isolated incident but a general finding. Again, this was in 2001.