Poll: Is it ethical/do you feel comfortable having a jeweler recreate a ring you like but can''t aff

[verticalhorizon]

Ok, I lied... here's my continued input...

When you're dealing with anything so original that it requires protection of any type, part of the profit margin and pricing structure is to cover a certain level of anticipated loss.

When a shoplifter steals a $40 dollar shirt, it will eventually cost everyone an extra $0.15 somewhere down the line in increased prices elsewhere in the store. This is most apparent in computer software, where it has been a problem ever since... well, since computer software's been around. Part of the exorbitant price of MS Office is development, anticipated loss (as in piracy), overhead, and general Bill Gates greed/monopoly.

This markup is factored into the price before it ever hits the public. Does it make it right to profit from someone else's hard work? No. But does it mean a young couple, starting out early in life are criminals b/c they wanted to have something similar to Tiffany's without the pricetag? Hardly.

Again, the tipping point here is that if one person asks their favorite jeweler to work with them to design something similar to a famous designer for their own use. The jeweler has the right to say they are not comfortable with that project.

Where it becomes unethical is when you conspire to copy designs for profit or deception. This would entail if the couple wanted to copy a famous design to sell on eBay under the false pretense of the Tiffany brand name (for Tiffany like prices).

Patent holders and copyright holders can complain all they want (it's their right to do so) if someone is benefiting from their work. I certainly would be upset if someone was duplicating my hard work. But don't tell me they don't know ahead of time that copies are a part of the 'game.' You have to pick your battles.

Would Vera Wang rather chase a 22 year old bride down the street b/c she had enough talent to sew her own similar version of a bridal gown for herself or instead set her lawers out to get some basement company in Hong Kong that is producing SHODDY knock-offs with Vera's actual name on them for a profit and public deception?

I believe there is a difference and it's intent.

PS: If you choose to quote me, quote the whole post.

 

[CaptAubrey]

so you're saying it's okay to shoplift something for your own personal usage because the retail price is calculated to cover the anticipated losses? that's a novel theory.

 

[foundnemo]

Even if the sweatshop does not put Vera's name on the gowns they are still doing "copies".

I don't think it's more ethical to reproduce only 1 copy just because it's not mass quantity. Since when is quantity a factor of ethics?

 

[ame]

I guess what I must figure is that anything that can be done has probably been done a million times. I haven't seen anything "new" or "unique" in jewelry design. Its all the same recycled thing with maybe a slightly different engraved pattern. woopidoo. A solitaire like Cartier and Tiffany, nothing new there. What you are buying from them is not the design, its the name and the name imprint in the shank.

I don't find that stealing to replicate something like that. I am in an industry where it's really freaking hard to be unique and everything is a variation of something else. Nothing new. Its not like you are actually bringing in the real thing, making a mold of it and literally copying it down to the trademark. THAT would be illegal and unethical.

 

[verticalhorizon]

"so you're saying it's okay to shoplift something for your own personal usage because the retail price is calculated to cover the anticipated losses? that's a novel theory."

Uhm... that's entirely not the point.

My point is that loss is always anticipated up front and prices are adjusted accordingly. Prices are also adjusted for things like possible earthquake or tornado damage.

My point is that patent holders and copyright holders are aware of anticipated loss and that there are gradations of loss and that it's not black and white. There is clearly a difference of intent between people who copy for monetary gain and deception and those who simply want something nice without spending a lot of money.

 

[verticalhorizon]

Quantity isn't a factor in ethics... intent is factor. And intent is more of a gray area. Not black and white, which I have to, unfortunately, try to illustrate in hypothetical examples (which are not perfect apparently). For this I am sorry.

 

[JHeebner]

"The jeweler has the right to say they are not comfortable with that project."

Correct.
But that couple is still unethical if they obtain an exact replica of a Tiffany setting from their jeweler. I'm talking about exact replicas only. If the jeweler agrees to produce one, he's guilty, too. Like Aubrey said: they're both in breach, the couple and the jeweler. Stealing is stealing.

And correct again, people in industry know the battles are part of the business, but that doesn't give consumers or trade members a green light to obtain/create knockoffs.

Vera Wang probably does choose her battles wisely. But those napster folks went after regular people recently---their kids were downloading music for free. That's scary--regular people!? It could've been you or your neighbor. And Tiffany's went another route last week: it launched a suit against eBay for permitting vendors with fake Tiffany merchandise to sell on the site. Tiffany's is holding eBay accountable for not policing itself properly. Geez, these actions say to me, that big names are getting increasingly pissed, and copycats better watch out.

 

[moremoremore]

Let me ask this question....Did Louis Vuitton bags become MORE or LESS popular after knock-offs? Do the copies make the original more coveted?

 

[questionsRus]

"i'm talking about exact replicas only" again, you decide to reword what you said previously. again, that is completely different than what people have been thinking, and totally changes the nature of this topic. so, everyone, would you make a mold of a certain setting and copy it, engraving, name and all?

 

[questionsRus]

i wouldn't i wouldn't! but as to the original topic, yes.

yeah i know it's cheesy to answer myself

 

[CaptAubrey]

----------------
On 7/15/2004 4:44:56 PM verticalhorizon wrote:





My point is that loss is always anticipated up front and prices are adjusted accordingly. Prices are also adjusted for things like possible earthquake or tornado damage.

My point is that patent holders and copyright holders are aware of anticipated loss and that there are gradations of loss and that it's not black and white. There is clearly a difference of intent between people who copy for monetary gain and deception and those who simply want something nice without spending a lot of money.
----------------

stealing a car that has insurance is still auto theft. if indeed retail prices are adjusted to cover anticipated losses due to knockoffs, what you're doing instead is stealing from all the people who pay extra for the design you got for free. i'm sorry, but that's still a rationalization.

the difference in intent doesn't change the fundamental crime. manslaughter and first degree murder are still homicide even if the intent differs.

 

[questionsRus]

----------------
On 7/15/2004 4:51:06 PM CaptAubrey wrote:

----------------
On 7/15/2004 4:44:56 PM verticalhorizon wrote:



My point is that loss is always anticipated up front and prices are adjusted accordingly. Prices are also adjusted for things like possible earthquake or tornado damage.

My point is that patent holders and copyright holders are aware of anticipated loss and that there are gradations of loss and that it's not black and white. There is clearly a difference of intent between people who copy for monetary gain and deception and those who simply want something nice without spending a lot of money.
----------------

stealing a car that has insurance is still auto theft. if indeed retail prices are adjusted to cover anticipated losses due to knockoffs, what you're doing instead is stealing from all the people who pay extra for the design you got for free. i'm sorry, but that's still a rationalization.

the difference in intent doesn't change the fundamental crime. manslaughter and first degree murder are still homicide even if the intent differs.
----------------

you didn't get the design for free, you got a FAKE

 

[Rank Amateur]

Sounds like VH is the final authority on how much profit one should make on a shirt/setting/software suite. (i.e. "It's not really stealing if the profit margin is large enough.") What??

Juan over on DT always maintained that it was OK for him to copy others' work because there was nothing really new in the jewelery design business. He could always go back in history and find an older example of something very similar. Of course Juan operates in Mexico, not exactly the last bastion for unassailable ethics in business (or politics), but it is an interesting point.

Stealing may be a black and white issue, but the difference between "inspired by" and "stolen from" is surely in the eye of the beholder.

 

[questionsRus]

don't put words in people's mouths. if he actually said that (i can't find it, at least not on this page) then quote it, if not, don't screw with what he said, that is what JHeebner is doing with his own topic, and he won't even comment on what i have said about it. i would like to know EXACTLY what the question on this poll is about. am i going to be quoted in saying "it's ok to make %@@$% a mold, and recreate ^^@@#%@% an exact setting, down to the name on the inside of the band??" (i put that stuff in there because i no longer trust his intent)

 

[foundnemo]

Does it matter if the "original" is more or less popular after being copied?

I don't think ethics is determined by the consequence.

In regards to not seeing any new ring designs, maybe that's because people are too busy trying to make copies.

If you want to save money and have "similar" ring copies, fine. But don't accuse those who gladly pay for the original design as going for the name only.

 

[verticalhorizon]

Tiffany's was complete within their right to hold eBay responsible, b/c:

1. consumers were being deceived and eBay was guilty by omission of action
2. eBay was benefiting from it monetarily from every transaction held on their site

It was good PR as well as for their bottom line. It showed their interest to maintain their level of quality.

And I would agree with JH in stating EXACT copies or knock-offs are unethical.

This does not change my stand on that similar creations, for the intent of personal use only, are more of a gray area that most corporations will not pursue b/c:

1. there is no money being made
2. there is no intent to deceive or defraud

Napster, which I've stated, was different b/c it involved actual property. Copying a song is equal to making an exact replica copy of a jewerly setting.

 

[JHeebner]

"I haven't seen anything "new" or "unique" in jewelry design."

Good Lord!!!!!!! If you were part of the jewelry trade, and went to the major shows, you'd see stuff that would knock your socks off.

I feel badly that consumers do not see the wide world of amazing jewelry that exists beyond what your jeweler decides to stock. What's available at the mall is not exciting, though it's better than it used to be, and local jewelers can be resistant to stocking high-end, unusual, designer pieces b/c the taste of the American public isn't that sophisticated.

If I could post images, I would, unfortunately, I've never been able to do so (don't know why). If you guys want to see amazing designs, subscribe to W Jewelry, it's a consumer magazine. My publishing group also has a consumer magazine, called Facets Magazine, and it's on newsstands.

 

[questionsRus]

----------------
On 7/15/2004 4:59:39 PM JHeebner wrote:

'I haven't seen anything 'new' or 'unique' in jewelry design.'

Good Lord!!!!!!! If you were part of the jewelry trade, and went to the major shows, you'd see stuff that would knock your socks off.

I feel badly that consumers do not see the wide world of amazing jewelry that exists beyond what your jeweler decides to stock. What's available at the mall is not exciting, though it's better than it used to be, and local jewelers can be resistant to stocking high-end, unusual, designer pieces b/c the taste of the American public isn't that sophisticated.

If I could post images, I would, unfortunately, I've never been able to do so (don't know why). If you guys want to see amazing designs, subscribe to W Jewelry, it's a consumer magazine. My publishing group also has a consumer magazine, called Facets Magazine, and it's on newsstands, but it's a project that is onhold right now. However, you could pick up the current copy until the beginning of Sept.
----------------

because you are in the jewelry trade, not a journalist right?

 

[Greg]

I see mostly consumers on this thread. Any vendors care (rhymes with "dare") to chime in?

 

[Rank Amateur]

JH

There has been a lot of jewelery produced in history. As I said, it is an interesting point since no man works in a vacuum.

Sounds like you have your "balanced" article already written, even before the research is done.

R/A

 

[verticalhorizon]

People aren't comparing apples to apples.

"stealing a car that has insurance is still auto theft. if indeed retail prices are adjusted to cover anticipated losses due to knockoffs, what you're doing instead is stealing from all the people who pay extra for the design you got for free. i'm sorry, but that's still a rationalization.

the difference in intent doesn't change the fundamental crime. manslaughter and first degree murder are still homicide even if the intent differs."

For this example to be the SAME, someone would have to actually STEAL THE RING out of the store.

Having a SIMILAR ring made based on elements of a popular Tiffany ring COULD translate to something like THIS:

If someone were so mechanically inclined to create a kit car of a BMW out of spare kitchen parts and their hot water heater, then they wouldn't be stealing. They would be creating something similar to a BMW for their own personal use and NOT to sell or decieve. For this, I doubt BMW would come after them.

Plus, not only that... I'm not even saying it's OK to do it. I'm saying that its a fact of business. People are reading too much into my rhetoric in that, if I say it... it must mean that I support crime. Or maybe... I support terrorism b/c I buy diamonds?

 

[questionsRus]

by the tone of your posts i can tell it's going to be a negative article toward something, who knows what, however i think you should stop arguing everyone's opinions. you asked for them, you got them. take them all with a grain of salt, and just accept that people have different beliefs. Do you speed (driving) by the way? this is directed at the creator of this post in case anyone wondered

 

[JHeebner]

I don't know that any article will come from this thread. I will most likely file this as "background information."
It's just interesting, being able to post a jewelry poll to consumers, on PS. And I appreciate all of the responses. This is a wonderful learning tool.

 

[Greg]

----------------
On 7/15/2004 5:05:51 PM verticalhorizon wrote:

People aren't comparing apples to apples.


'stealing a car that has insurance is still auto theft. if indeed retail prices are adjusted to cover anticipated losses due to knockoffs, what you're doing instead is stealing from all the people who pay extra for the design you got for free. i'm sorry, but that's still a rationalization.


the difference in intent doesn't change the fundamental crime. manslaughter and first degree murder are still homicide even if the intent differs.'


For this example to be the SAME, someone would have to actually STEAL THE RING out of the store.


Having a SIMILAR ring made based on elements of a popular Tiffany ring COULD translate to something like THIS:


If someone were so mechanically inclined to create a kit car of a BMW out of spare kitchen parts and their hot water heater, then they wouldn't be stealing. They would be creating something similar to a BMW for their own personal use and NOT to sell or decieve. For this, I doubt BMW would come after them.


Plus, not only that... I'm not even saying it's OK to do it. I'm saying that its a fact of business. People are reading too much into my rhetoric in that, if I say it... it must mean that I support crime. Or maybe... I support terrorism b/c I buy diamonds?


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

VH, For you're example to work, you'd have to have Honda make a replica of the BMW, and then pay them for it. ...And Honda would offer this service to everyone who came by the store with a picture of a BMW. BMW would take issue with that.

You're right though, none of the metaphors people are using for copying a ring design really apply all that well.

 

[moremoremore]

I don't know the answer foundnemo...that's why I asked...but I would be interested to know if the original designer's originals get more popular with the surge of copies...and the designer is benefitted somewhat

 

[Shay37]

----------------
On 7/15/2004 4:59:39 PM JHeebner wrote:

'I haven't seen anything 'new' or 'unique' in jewelry design.'

I feel badly that consumers do not see the wide world of amazing jewelry that exists beyond what your jeweler decides to stock. What's available at the mall is not exciting, though it's better than it used to be, and local jewelers can be resistant to stocking high-end, unusual, designer pieces b/c the taste of the American public isn't that sophisticated.

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

OUCH!!! I don't think it's sophistication or the lack thereof that applies to most people's decisions with regards to jewelry. I think I remember reading on this forum not too long ago that the average amount spent on e-rings in the United States was $3500. A lot of people in this country cannot afford more than that or choose not to spend it for other prioritized reasons. When you're talking about settings that are more unique and amazing, $3500 can be just for the setting. (sometimes more) I don't know about others, but I'd kind of like to have a diamond to put in the setting. Does that make my taste less discriminating or sophisticated than others? Nope. Just means kids gotta eat, bills gotta get paid. Oh, well, such is life.

Shay

 

[verticalhorizon]

I would definitely have to agree with Greg... it's VERY difficult to come up with examples that fit perfectly. I fear that too many people jump to conclusions without thinking about the comparisons, myself included. Name calling and quote twisting, well... that's another issue.

I think that Greg was onto something with the car analogy though. BWM would most certainly take issue with Honda making a similar car than a BWM. Although, it is quite interesting how many cars in their respective classes are quite similar. (And I'm not even counting those co-produced by multiple companies.)

Perhaps a better automotive example would be more like this:

Instead of Honda making a make-shift BWM... how about that guy from American Chopper (more like an independent jeweler) custom builds something similar to a Harley (but of course, chopper style), without Harley logos or the trademarked sound (they are very finicky about that)?

 

[questionsRus]

eh, that's the second thing he's said about america in this topic, i wouldn't worry about it too much

 

[moremoremore]

Big Pauly or Pauly Jr. vertical horizon?

 

[questionsRus]

----------------
On 7/15/2004 5:22:14 PM verticalhorizon wrote:

I would definitely have to agree with Greg... it's VERY difficult to come up with examples that fit perfectly. I fear that too many people jump to conclusions without thinking about the comparisons, myself included. Name calling and quote twisting, well... that's another issue.

I think that Greg was onto something with the car analogy though. BWM would most certainly take issue with Honda making a similar car than a BWM. Although, it is quite interesting how many cars in their respective classes are quite similar. (And I'm not even counting those co-produced by multiple companies.)

Perhaps a better automotive example would be more like this:

Instead of Honda making a make-shift BWM... how about that guy from American Chopper (more like an independent jeweler) custom builds something similar to a Harley (but of course, chopper style), without Harley logos or the trademarked sound (they are very finicky about that)?
----------------

like the new honda (accura maybe?) looks like a mercedes in the back. i mistook one for a mercedes a while ago.

it's kind of freaking me out how i'm always the first one to post on a new page.