An Open Catalog [1847usa Continued Discussion]

From another thread relating to 1847usa.com:




<<small edit by moderator>>

However, this issue, the past threads discussing copyright issues in numbering systems, and the recent thread discussing issues in renewing subscriptions to Amos publications convinces me that more distance away from Amos, not less, is what is needed.

While recognizing that the work of a publisher in preparing a catalog containing a significant amount of creative authorship in item descriptions, articles, identification notes and the like ought to be protected by IP rights and rewarded by the purchase price, the unwillingness to permit others to reproduce item numbers alone, for the purpose of identifying items and not to supplant the other value of the catalog, is to me an unreasonable restriction. Indeed, to me such restrictions are utterly myopic on the part of the publisher because they fail to recognize that third party use of particular catalog numbers for identification tends to drive sales of the catalogs. Once you know the number of an item, you want to know more about that item; if you don't have the catalog, you want it.

Therefore, just as the open source software movement has revitalized and disrupted the production of high-quality software products, we need an open stamp catalogue - a high-quality, group produced, compilation of knowledge about stamps, perhaps of just one country to start perhaps, for which there are no restrictions on the use of catalog numbers by anyone.

I'm aware of the amount of work involved in such a project. That doesn't need to be debated. It's not an issue that has deterred open source software coders. You create a community, get in and do it. What I'm interested in is whether the time is right for such a project and whether it would be embraced by collectors or considered a quirk.

Perhaps it's been proposed before. If so, point me to the debate, and I apologize; I find "why doesn't it exist now" to be a philosophically interesting question.

Not another Scott tread, do you have at least an idea how much will cost a website to host it , espeically if the trafic is high ?, Who gone pay for it and who will be the owner of the site ? Who will be the one Amos will go after ? Personnaly I'm interested only if you produce a printed version, but wait Scott already have one.

Out of curiosity, I just waded through all 8 pages of the other thread on this very copyright issue. Sone general thoughts......... *There was no consensus or agreement on the other thread. **I thought essayk's comments were good and well thought out. ***I think that Scott's numbering system is protected under copyright law and I don't see the value in comparing that numbering system to open source computer software. ****"why doesn't it exist now?" Actually it does exist, in the form of the Minkus New World Wide Stamp Catalog, first published in 1955. That catalog caused an immense amount of confusion for me back in the 1960s, as a new collector, with its competing & different numbering system. I don't know if the catalog is still in print, but Scott appears to own the Minkus albums. *****what's the point of starting a whole new thread on the same topic?

My final enhanced point. Everyone is mourning the demise of the 1847usa site. Given that I'm not an active collector of classic US, the demise means nothing to me, and likely many others. Rather than spending so much time arguing over copyright issues, I would much rather see encouragement to Scott/Amos to adjust its marketing. Depending on country, my collections end in either 1965 or 1974. I would be more likely to buy updates every 2 out of 3 years if I didn't also get all the post-1974 stuff. Regards, climber steve


p.s. I just read, on another thread, that 1847usa is back on line under different ownership. I hope that those who do collect classic US continue to find it useful. As for me, I won't be making a financial contribution to keep the site going, for reasons given above.

cjpalermo1964: I agree with you since in this case it appears that their trademark may be easier to defend against use with and without the numbers than just the numbers only by themselves. However, I always believed that for convenience all stamps that have the same exact design with same denomination but differ by watermark, perforations, etc. should have one major number like 1A for the very first main stamp then 1B, 1C, etc. for the next ones, etc. Varieties under them would be like 1Aa, 1Ab, 1Ba, 1Bb, etc. There are ways to make logical cataloging system numbers work, especially for philatelic specialists for any specific issues.

I agree. A new, open catalog would give philatelists the opportunity to use the wisdom in, and errors of, prior numbering systems to create a new, logical numbering system that the community agrees is good.







This is a new topic. This topic assumes arguendo that all prior catalog numbering systems per se ARE protected by copyright, whether or not that is a legal truth. This topic asks whether the community should develop an open catalog with a numbering system that is not copyright protected to counter all the issues that have been previously discussed.




Asked and answered. Communities solve these problems. I'm aware of the amount of work involved in such a project. That doesn't need to be debated. It's not an issue that has deterred open source software coders. You create a community, get in and do it. What I'm interested in is whether the time is right for such a project and whether it would be embraced by collectors or considered a quirk.

You call it an answer ?...Even a non profit association have starting fees, who gone pay for it ? And you don't answer me, how much you think hosting will cost ?

Let's be honest here, auction houses, ebay all use scott #, you can use Scott # if you print your own album, no one will know, so what is your real problem? Cost of the catalog ? … I have the catalog, ebay and sellers use it, so we gone all to change system because you don't want to purchase a Scott catalog ? or you are in crusade against Amos ? What will be your use of such a catalog beside ID, sell and purchase stamps ?

My only complain about Scott, is that they should sell supplements beside the full years catalog, it's not that much involvement. just use the same pages in a new book. I will not have problem to spend $ 100 for it every year, instead of many hundreds every 5 years.

For better or worse, Scott catalog numbers (and Gibbons, Michel, Yvert, etc for their respective areas) are kind of like the QWERTY keyboard. They're not necessarily ideal or perfect, but so many people are so familiar with their use that the odds of anyone changing are virtually nil.

Enough reality...

This is a just for fun "what if" topic. If you can't play the game...

I suspect that the "numbers" used in a new catalog system cannot be logical.

This is because, when looking at existing systems we tend to forget that they are based on knowledge available at the time. As additional facts are realized, the numbering gets complicated and sometimes nonsensical.

Look at the listings for the 1950 US Liberty issues for an example of how additional facts are worked into the numbering system.

The catalog numbering system can only be used a reference, not an indicator of any sort of logic. We cannot even use the "issuing country" as part of the numbering system due to changes in political entities.

Consider one of the current HOT topics here; the virtual stamp album.

Wouldn't it be great if you could reconfigure your catalog to match your view of collecting?

Choose from a number of dimensions describing of what to include and what order to put the stamps in your catalog.

The reference numbers do not need to be in any particular order. Your catalog could have US #1 as its first entry while my catalog is worldwide by date of issue. If in the virtual catalog, US #1's reference is 123456, then when we look to buy it we will both look for a 123456.

Now the question becomes, if we create the database to support this reference system, will the pricing catalogs cross-reference to it or will they allow the database to cross-reference to their numbers?

Creating the identity database will be difficult enough. I don't think we want to tackle pricing.

Don't we all tackle pricing everytime we bid on a stamp?

Anyone with the time and inclination can start their own stamp catalog and assign any numbers they wish, following any sort of logic (or lack thereof) that the designer wishes. However, stamp catalogs (any catalogs) only work as a reference tool in the larger hobbyist community if and only if the use of said catalog is widespread. Like it or not, Scott numbers are basically universally used among US collectors. Also like it or not those numbers are trademarked and copyrighted and are the property of Amos Publishing, who has every legal right to enforce how others use them.

This desire to reinvent a perfectly functional wheel is basically a desire to wrest at least some control of those numbers away from the company that's done all the hard work of creating the catalog. Seems to me that an easier course of action would be just to get an agreement done with Amos. By the sounds of it from other members of this board, this shouldn't be too difficult or expensive. At least in my opinion, it wouldn't be as difficult or expensive (or as doomed to failure and non-use) as creating a new catalog from scratch.

[EDIT: While I typed this post, I see that TheArtfulHinger has also commented on "reinventing the wheel".]

I think discussion is always a good thing. However, to keep things in perspective, NUMEROUS alternative numbering systems (not just for US stamps) have been developed over the past couple of decades. Some of them are quite good, some of them are pretty awful. Some are copyright, some are open for all to use.

What it all amounts to is reinventing the wheel over and over and over again. Each person has his/her own preference of wheel style/size, but you will find the basic shape unchanged. The only real question is whether or not you want to spend the time to develop/customize your own wheel, or you are willing to simply dish out the bucks and buy them at your local tire shop. As mentioned above, there are not only time issues, there are also financial issues in SUCCESSFULLY getting a new numbering system out.

Again, I think it's always a good conversation. But the bottom lines will be, a new numbering system must not only be better than the current system, but also:

-- widely accepted by dealers (not just collectors)
-- managed by fairly strict guidelines (because collectors tend to be very opinionated)
-- have sufficient manpower/financial resources to maintain/update/communicate

In other words, there's a LOT more to it than just designing a new numbering system. It's been done several times. The reason most of us never hear about these alternative numbering system is listed above. I've even known dealers to develop new US numbering systems, which they pretty much abandon because no other dealer will adopt it.

There are those who are developing both new numbering systems and free cataloging software (some beta versions are fairly impressive). Again, reinventing the wheel over and over again. Again, most of us (unless we do a lot of diligent searching and forum surfing) never hear/test them out. One of the most simple reason for their demise (or lack of acceptance) is simple -- it does/has what You (the developer) wants, but does it do/have what I want? If it doesn't, then most of us will stick to what we are using, because for the most part, it is good enough and interfaces smoothly with other dealers/collectors.

Meanwhile, Amos continues to shoot themselves in the foot with their hard line on licensing (I would think 1847usa would have brought in more catalog-buyers).

Don't get me wrong, this thread will have interesting points, many of which have been presented in the numerous other threads here/elsewhere on this topic.

I'm not very hopeful, but maybe, just maybe, one day...

JMHO

This is a partial quote from one of my posts in an older thread (6 years ago!):

I suspect that the problem we are discussing is not considered to be a problem by a majority of collectors. Yes, we all gripe about the shortcomings of our chosen catalogue's (catalogues') editorial foibles, but they generally work fairly well. We adapt.

The people who would have the expertise necessary to create and populate a system sufficient to displace established specialized catalogues probably don't want to spend their days doing it. And we're never going to all agree on what should, and should not, be reflected in the numbering system.

You can't herd cats.

k

Like I said, maybe one day...

Now back to the originally scheduled other "cat" thread topic...