Purchased the GB QE2 last night. So far unable to get to where the PDF is stored, no link in email. Feedback link inoperative.
Email to customer service, their reply says;
Accessing Digital Online Publications
1. Sign into your Stanley Gibbons account
2. Under My Account (on left hand side), select ONLINE PUBLICATIONS
3. Click VIEW ONLINE
4. Dropdown list on left hand side, select catalogues category - ie Commonwealth etc and catalogues under that category will appear.
5. Find the catalogue you have ordered
6. Hover over that catalogue and you should see READ appear (if you see Preview or Buy you have not ordered that catalogue)
7. Click READ and you will then be into your catalogue.
Pointed out to them that I purchased as "Guest", still awaiting reply. Probably all gone home now.
Unable to log in with old account details, created new account, still says no purchases.
Would seem that it is not going to be a download but file kept on their server or maybe I'm wrong. Unable to tell until I can see something. Not a good experience so far, apart from no visuals of the catalogue pages or year of edition on the website which I fail to understand from a marketing viewpoint.
Will update when I get further.
Does this payment process apply to just subscribe to SGSM?
Reply from SG confirming what Chris has stated above "Unfortunately, as you have ordered the catalogue using the 'Guest' facility, the download will not work. Although this is mentioned in the discription, it is not highlighted - and we will be looking to make this clearer."
Personally I do not recall seeing it in the description but why did the system allow me to purchase it in the first place, basic coding issue.
They are refunding my payment but if I am unable to download the whole pdf to my computer to work from not sure I want to purchase anything.
With restricted satellite internet and frequent dropout, having to maintain a live connection will be a pain.
Seems like another ill conceived plan from SG.
I already had, still have, an account with Gibbons but it would not allow me to log in, and as it accepted my purchase as a guest I did not go any further.
Sorry but nowhere on their sales site did it state that the PDF would only be available online, I reckon that is dubious sales practise at best.
From their website,
"the possibility to access generations of philatelic expertise at the touch of a finger with instant downloads"
"You can now access our world famous Stamp Catalogues PDF’s on your desktop, mobile or tablet"
Scott and Gibbons - two philatelic companies from the beginning, and which are VERY reluctant and resistant to change. Will they be future dinosaurs?
Words on a screen is not an excuse for poor interface design that allows one to do something not allowed.
I went to order a pdf but got lost in a maze of questions that had nothing to do with my download .And there was no information on the digital download at all.
I emailed SG with my concerns and received a nice reply ,saying this was a work in progress and they were working on updates to it.
I'll try again in a couple of weeks and see if it's improved.
Brian
"Scott and Gibbons - two philatelic companies from the beginning, and which are VERY reluctant and resistant to change. Will they be future dinosaurs?"
"Without Scott in North America and GB in the Commonwealth I think that stamp collecting would have a rapid decline."
The fear of court costs is a deterrent. Even Krause's lawsuit ended in a settlement and they supposedly had a top IP lawyer.
Even if Scott or SG went under, someone would buy the assets and do something with it. I suspect no matter what that US collectors would use Scott numbers for already issued stamps unless some major change. It is about future issues.
"The fear of court costs is a deterrent. Even Krause's lawsuit ended in a settlement and they supposedly had a top IP lawyer..."
They definitely go after everyone. Amos considers certain non-commercial use a threat to their commercial business and we have laws on fair use. They likely feel it can be a slippery slope on controlling non-commercial use. I am not defending their actions but noting their motivations.
Their best protection is actually to create a better product but seem stuck with digital offerings that are little more than a rendering of the printed page. The question is why - lack of expertise, do not see quick revenue, not willing to invest the money to do the conversion, etc.
Not being very tech savvy would it not be possible to identify each pdf with a unique code ( like that in vehicle paint or printers) that would lead back to the original purchaser of the file.
The web crawlers are fairly proficient at picking out offered items and really only the major selling platforms are likely to be used by fraudsters who need a vast market to make it worthwhile.
As I said earlier it seems to be ill conceived and rushed and obviously not properly tested before being released to Joe public.
Yes, there are many ‘document control’ solutions, an entire industry as a matter of fact. Some of them are so secure that you literally ‘install’ the PDF to your computer and it will only ever open and display on that computer. All of these solutions are very expensive, especially with the support required. (These types of document security easily triple your support costs.) I assume that this is the reason that philatelic publishers do not use them.
But what is the point? Are hard copy publishing also fearful of photocopy machines? Scanners? I can scan a hardcopy catalog and have it posted on a 'dark web' website in Kathmandu or Ukraine in a few hours. No philatelic publisher has the resources to try to chase something that like down half way around the world (even if they had a technical expertise).
In my opinion companies who say that they are sticking with hard copy for security reasons are just making excuses for not changing.
There is one simple solution. You cannot compete with the internet. Figure out how to transition to being an online publisher. Not only do people want their information when and where they want it, but the cost of paper is going to continue to grow. Additionally, they need to reach customers across the globe. What kind of business plan is 'lets cut down trees so we can print a catalog and then ship the heavy paper half way around the globe'?
I love my books, I love my small library in my house. But any IT person/content delivery company with any common sense realized the game changed about 20 years ago. The fact that we still have philatelic publishers struggling to deal with transition is a sign that they are not going to make it.
Don
From Wikipedia regarding the Krause lawsuit.
"Because of its commercial importance the publishers of the Scott Catalogue claim copyright on their numbering systems, and grant only limited licences for their use by others. The inconsistency with which Scott enforced these licences resulted in a lawsuit by Krause Publications (publishers of the Minkus Catalogue) for copyright infringement. After Krause filed a defence the suit was settled out of court, and Krause continued to reference the Scott numbers. It has been speculated that Scott was not successful. "
If I recall, Krause did create a separate printed cross reference but was not part of the main catalog as originally done so there were limits on usage.
The aspect that go me was them being flexible in licensing. We know they have denied usage to some people after this.
The inconsistency of the licensing is only part of the issue.
Catalog numbers lack originality and as such are not entitled to copyright protection. Anyone who wants to start a stamp catalog numbering system would most likely start with #1 in chronological order. The absence of creativity is a critical attribute of any typical numbering system that simply increments a number with each additional stamp.
There is legal precedence for companies trying to copyright a catalog/part numbering system (which even included ‘intelligent’ numbering) and the court ruled that is was not copyrightable. (i.e. Southco Inc. v. Kanebridge Corp.).
It only makes sense that trying to copyright a number or alphabet-based catalog identifiers would require a 'high creativity bar' to be covered. If it were not, than generating a new identification numbering system would be almost impossible since decades of existing numbering system would already be in place.
I fully support the copyright laws and intellectual property rights; I think they are critical in allowing innovation and entrepreneurship to thrive. But copyrights only cover original, creative works; assigning incremental numbers does not meet that criteria.
Don
Since Amos Media owns Scott, and bought Minkus, kind of a moot point. Now the issue should be with Amos Media buying out so many philatelic firms, when does monopoly come to play? You can see the results by the ridiculous rise in prices of philatelic items sold by Amos.
The Krause lawsuit had the opportunity to settle it but it did not. What Krause did after was not that significant to me so despite what the article said Scott did prevail more than Krause.
Of course, any behavior changes out of the settlement would have to enforced in yet another court case that will likely never happen.
The world can move on and build a better mousetrap.
SG has announced the availability of their catalogues in PDF form.
SG Digital Catalogues
There is a reasonable saving over the printed version, e.g the 2019 Commonwealth & British Empire Stamp Catalogue is £62.95 digital compared to £89.95 printed.
However, for those of us in the colonies, the real saving is on postage.
Hopefully, rampant piracy will not force them to put an end to the digital offerings.
Clive
re: Stanley Gibbons Goes Digitial
Purchased the GB QE2 last night. So far unable to get to where the PDF is stored, no link in email. Feedback link inoperative.
Email to customer service, their reply says;
Accessing Digital Online Publications
1. Sign into your Stanley Gibbons account
2. Under My Account (on left hand side), select ONLINE PUBLICATIONS
3. Click VIEW ONLINE
4. Dropdown list on left hand side, select catalogues category - ie Commonwealth etc and catalogues under that category will appear.
5. Find the catalogue you have ordered
6. Hover over that catalogue and you should see READ appear (if you see Preview or Buy you have not ordered that catalogue)
7. Click READ and you will then be into your catalogue.
Pointed out to them that I purchased as "Guest", still awaiting reply. Probably all gone home now.
Unable to log in with old account details, created new account, still says no purchases.
Would seem that it is not going to be a download but file kept on their server or maybe I'm wrong. Unable to tell until I can see something. Not a good experience so far, apart from no visuals of the catalogue pages or year of edition on the website which I fail to understand from a marketing viewpoint.
Will update when I get further.
re: Stanley Gibbons Goes Digitial
Does this payment process apply to just subscribe to SGSM?
re: Stanley Gibbons Goes Digitial
Reply from SG confirming what Chris has stated above "Unfortunately, as you have ordered the catalogue using the 'Guest' facility, the download will not work. Although this is mentioned in the discription, it is not highlighted - and we will be looking to make this clearer."
Personally I do not recall seeing it in the description but why did the system allow me to purchase it in the first place, basic coding issue.
They are refunding my payment but if I am unable to download the whole pdf to my computer to work from not sure I want to purchase anything.
With restricted satellite internet and frequent dropout, having to maintain a live connection will be a pain.
Seems like another ill conceived plan from SG.
re: Stanley Gibbons Goes Digitial
I already had, still have, an account with Gibbons but it would not allow me to log in, and as it accepted my purchase as a guest I did not go any further.
Sorry but nowhere on their sales site did it state that the PDF would only be available online, I reckon that is dubious sales practise at best.
From their website,
"the possibility to access generations of philatelic expertise at the touch of a finger with instant downloads"
"You can now access our world famous Stamp Catalogues PDF’s on your desktop, mobile or tablet"
re: Stanley Gibbons Goes Digitial
Scott and Gibbons - two philatelic companies from the beginning, and which are VERY reluctant and resistant to change. Will they be future dinosaurs?
re: Stanley Gibbons Goes Digitial
Words on a screen is not an excuse for poor interface design that allows one to do something not allowed.
re: Stanley Gibbons Goes Digitial
I went to order a pdf but got lost in a maze of questions that had nothing to do with my download .And there was no information on the digital download at all.
I emailed SG with my concerns and received a nice reply ,saying this was a work in progress and they were working on updates to it.
I'll try again in a couple of weeks and see if it's improved.
Brian
re: Stanley Gibbons Goes Digitial
"Scott and Gibbons - two philatelic companies from the beginning, and which are VERY reluctant and resistant to change. Will they be future dinosaurs?"
re: Stanley Gibbons Goes Digitial
"Without Scott in North America and GB in the Commonwealth I think that stamp collecting would have a rapid decline."
re: Stanley Gibbons Goes Digitial
The fear of court costs is a deterrent. Even Krause's lawsuit ended in a settlement and they supposedly had a top IP lawyer.
Even if Scott or SG went under, someone would buy the assets and do something with it. I suspect no matter what that US collectors would use Scott numbers for already issued stamps unless some major change. It is about future issues.
re: Stanley Gibbons Goes Digitial
"The fear of court costs is a deterrent. Even Krause's lawsuit ended in a settlement and they supposedly had a top IP lawyer..."
re: Stanley Gibbons Goes Digitial
They definitely go after everyone. Amos considers certain non-commercial use a threat to their commercial business and we have laws on fair use. They likely feel it can be a slippery slope on controlling non-commercial use. I am not defending their actions but noting their motivations.
Their best protection is actually to create a better product but seem stuck with digital offerings that are little more than a rendering of the printed page. The question is why - lack of expertise, do not see quick revenue, not willing to invest the money to do the conversion, etc.
re: Stanley Gibbons Goes Digitial
Not being very tech savvy would it not be possible to identify each pdf with a unique code ( like that in vehicle paint or printers) that would lead back to the original purchaser of the file.
The web crawlers are fairly proficient at picking out offered items and really only the major selling platforms are likely to be used by fraudsters who need a vast market to make it worthwhile.
As I said earlier it seems to be ill conceived and rushed and obviously not properly tested before being released to Joe public.
re: Stanley Gibbons Goes Digitial
Yes, there are many ‘document control’ solutions, an entire industry as a matter of fact. Some of them are so secure that you literally ‘install’ the PDF to your computer and it will only ever open and display on that computer. All of these solutions are very expensive, especially with the support required. (These types of document security easily triple your support costs.) I assume that this is the reason that philatelic publishers do not use them.
But what is the point? Are hard copy publishing also fearful of photocopy machines? Scanners? I can scan a hardcopy catalog and have it posted on a 'dark web' website in Kathmandu or Ukraine in a few hours. No philatelic publisher has the resources to try to chase something that like down half way around the world (even if they had a technical expertise).
In my opinion companies who say that they are sticking with hard copy for security reasons are just making excuses for not changing.
There is one simple solution. You cannot compete with the internet. Figure out how to transition to being an online publisher. Not only do people want their information when and where they want it, but the cost of paper is going to continue to grow. Additionally, they need to reach customers across the globe. What kind of business plan is 'lets cut down trees so we can print a catalog and then ship the heavy paper half way around the globe'?
I love my books, I love my small library in my house. But any IT person/content delivery company with any common sense realized the game changed about 20 years ago. The fact that we still have philatelic publishers struggling to deal with transition is a sign that they are not going to make it.
Don
re: Stanley Gibbons Goes Digitial
From Wikipedia regarding the Krause lawsuit.
"Because of its commercial importance the publishers of the Scott Catalogue claim copyright on their numbering systems, and grant only limited licences for their use by others. The inconsistency with which Scott enforced these licences resulted in a lawsuit by Krause Publications (publishers of the Minkus Catalogue) for copyright infringement. After Krause filed a defence the suit was settled out of court, and Krause continued to reference the Scott numbers. It has been speculated that Scott was not successful. "
re: Stanley Gibbons Goes Digitial
If I recall, Krause did create a separate printed cross reference but was not part of the main catalog as originally done so there were limits on usage.
The aspect that go me was them being flexible in licensing. We know they have denied usage to some people after this.
re: Stanley Gibbons Goes Digitial
The inconsistency of the licensing is only part of the issue.
Catalog numbers lack originality and as such are not entitled to copyright protection. Anyone who wants to start a stamp catalog numbering system would most likely start with #1 in chronological order. The absence of creativity is a critical attribute of any typical numbering system that simply increments a number with each additional stamp.
There is legal precedence for companies trying to copyright a catalog/part numbering system (which even included ‘intelligent’ numbering) and the court ruled that is was not copyrightable. (i.e. Southco Inc. v. Kanebridge Corp.).
It only makes sense that trying to copyright a number or alphabet-based catalog identifiers would require a 'high creativity bar' to be covered. If it were not, than generating a new identification numbering system would be almost impossible since decades of existing numbering system would already be in place.
I fully support the copyright laws and intellectual property rights; I think they are critical in allowing innovation and entrepreneurship to thrive. But copyrights only cover original, creative works; assigning incremental numbers does not meet that criteria.
Don
re: Stanley Gibbons Goes Digitial
Since Amos Media owns Scott, and bought Minkus, kind of a moot point. Now the issue should be with Amos Media buying out so many philatelic firms, when does monopoly come to play? You can see the results by the ridiculous rise in prices of philatelic items sold by Amos.
re: Stanley Gibbons Goes Digitial
The Krause lawsuit had the opportunity to settle it but it did not. What Krause did after was not that significant to me so despite what the article said Scott did prevail more than Krause.
Of course, any behavior changes out of the settlement would have to enforced in yet another court case that will likely never happen.
The world can move on and build a better mousetrap.