Author Topic: Vogel 3rd edition online  (Read 9406 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.


  • Guest
Polverone, thanks man!
« Reply #40 on: July 28, 2002, 03:51:00 AM »
Polverone, thanks man! Took just over 7 minutes to download your file, and it unzipped perfectly!

    ô¿ô    --  Anger management? Fuck that!


  • Guest
What ae you talking about
« Reply #41 on: July 28, 2002, 05:39:00 AM »
Copyright law is not intended to prevent you from copying things for educational purposes and then using them in that matter, what it's inent is is to prevent you from making money off of the other person's intellectual property. If there is no money involved, and the intent of the usage is educational, then there is little chance that you have broken any copyright law here is a quick guide.

The 1976 Copyright Act grants the "fair use" of copyrighted materials for a variety of purposes, for the creation of new works, for educational use, and for personal use. The following principles provide a framework for the application of educational fair use. The goal is to enable teachers and scholars to use copyrighted materials for teaching, scholarship, and research with respect for the rights of copyright holders as well as their own rights.

The principles are based on three propositions: (1) the copyright statute regulates the copyright monopoly it grants in order to maintain an appropriate balance between the rights of copyright holders and the rights of users; (2) the copyright monopoly is essentially for marketing a work and does not extend to the copy of a work that the copyright owner has sold; and (3) the ultimate test for educational fair use is whether the copying is done for sound pedagogical reasons and not simply to avoid purchasing a work.

These ideas, and the fair use principles stated below, are grounded in the discussion that follows in Part III and in the legal authorities discussed in Part IV. The principles of fair use are derived from the Fair Use Statute, 17 U.S.C. § 107, which is printed in full in Part IV.

Fair use is derivative of copyright and is complex in part because there are three kinds of copyright, each of which varies in the scope of copyright protection:

Creative copyright, for original works such as a novel, drama, painting, sonata, or poem (plenary copyright protection)

Compilation copyright, for a directory or anthology (limited copyright protection)

Derivative copyright, for works based on another work, such as a motion picture based on a novel (limited copyright protection)

Fair use applies to all copyrighted works regardless of the media in which they are fixed: print, electronic, or multimedia.

There are four kinds of use:

Personal use is the use of a copyrighted work for the purpose for which it was intended, e.g., reading a book.

Infringing use is a use that violates one of the rights granted to copyright holders in section 106 of the copyright statute.

Fair use is a use permitted by the copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing.

Constitutional use is the use of uncopyrightable, i.e., public domain, material and is protected by the U.S. Constitution.

Fair use is a right granted to users by section 107 of the copyright statute.

Fair use modifies the marketing monopoly of the copyright holder so that copyright can fulfill its constitutional purpose of promoting learning.

Everyone has a constitutional right to use public domain material without limitation, even if it is included in a copyrighted work.

One infringes a copyright, not a work, and fair use applies only to the use of the copyright. Therefore, determining if a use is fair requires making the following distinctions between a use of the work itself and a use of the copyright of the work:

One who copies a work to put it on the market uses the copyright, because the copyright holder has the right to market the work. Without permission, such a use is an infringing use.

One who copies from a work for study or research uses the work, not the copyright, because the use is a use for which the work was intended. Such a use is a fair use, not an infringement.

One may always use a work without permission; one may use a copyright only with permission or as a matter of fair use.

The threshold issue in determining fair use is whether the copying involves a use of the work or a use of the copyright because:

The use of the work is by definition a protected use.

The use of the copyright must be with permission or must fulfill fair use criteria.

Fair use normally entails copying and is of three kinds:

Creative fair use by authors who copy from other works to create their own work.

Personal fair use by individuals who copy from works for their own learning or entertainment.

Educational fair use by teachers, scholars, and students who copy for teaching, scholarship, or learning.

There are four nonexclusive statutory factors--all directed to the marketing of works-- to use in determining whether a use is fair. They are:

The purpose of the use, including whether such use is for commercial or for non- profit educational purposes. (Commercial purpose implies a use of the copyright; educational purpose, a use of the work.)

The nature of the work. (This requires a determination of whether the work is a creative work, a compilation, or a derivative work.)

The amount used in relation to the work as a whole. (The amount of the work used is a major factor in determining whether the use is merely a use of the work or a use of the copyright; the greater the amount used, the more likely the use will be a use of the copyright.)

The effect of the use on the market or potential market for the work. (The greater the market effect, the less the likelihood that the use will be fair.)

The four factors are not exclusive. Other factors that may be relevant are the availability of the work, the ability to determine whether the work is still under copyright, and the ability to locate the copyright holder.

The four factors are necessary because fair use is to be determined on a case-by-case basis in order to protect the constitutional rights of users.

Attempts to limit the fair use right with quantitative guidelines are without statutory authority.

The legal effect of quantitative guidelines is to provide a safe-harbor, i.e., copying within the guideline limits automatically qualifies as fair use. Such guidelines do not, and cannot legally, mean that copying in excess of the guidelines is infringement and not fair use.

The limitations on the copyright monopoly in sections 108-120 grant rights to non-copyright holders as to particular type uses; these rights, however, do not negate the general right of fair use, which permits uses in excess of the limitations if the additional uses are fair.

The location of the line between fair use and infringing use is determined by the market factor, that is, the extent to which the copy becomes a substitute for the purchase of the work.

The 1976 Copyright Act protects educational fair use with four different provisions:

The use of works for "teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship and research" as exemplars of fair use (Sec. 107)

The distinction between commercial and nonprofit educational use (Sec. 107(1)), a superfluous distinction unless it means special protection for educational use

The provision that fair use overrides the limitations on library photocopying (Sec. 108(f)(4))

The good faith defense for employees of nonprofit educational institutions, libraries, and archives (Sec. 504(c)(2))

The copyright statute does not empower copyright holders to override the fair use right by overbroad copyright notices or other unilaterally imposed provisions.

Anyhow it is a common misconception that simply making copies  from a book or copying information and republishing it for information is somehow breaking the law as you can see it is not.


We are the people that your parents warned you about.


  • Guest
the prevailing copywrite laws are much more ...
« Reply #42 on: July 28, 2002, 09:34:00 PM »
the prevailing copywrite laws are much more recent than 1976 and although you sound very legalistic and the copy key is your friend and allie - what I said was a hands on laymans experience.

are you an attorney? or the like?

you might notice there was no internet in 1976.  copywrite infringement doesn't necessarily involve a direct monetary profiting. one might and does profit from an unfair use. as opposed to the "fair use" of intellectual properties, etc.

anywho your technical correctness notwithstanding I stand on my original post.

OTEECEE & meeeee!!!!


  • Guest
further copywrite law is intended to protect the ...
« Reply #43 on: July 28, 2002, 09:57:00 PM »
further copywrite law is intended to protect the creator of such from unfair use.
that means from getting ripped off by unpaid distribution on a scale that would unfairly deprive the creator of a monetary return on his efforts. try to tell me that this isn't the crux of internet publishing.

fella I ain't no lawyer but common sense hasn't taken a vacation either.

but then again there is the issue of interpretation of the word and concept "fair". yours may differ from mine. so be it.

OTEECEE & meeeee!!!!


  • Guest
Copyright is still a problem.
« Reply #44 on: July 29, 2002, 06:55:00 AM »
I'm not going to kid myself. What I did was reproduce, wholesale, a copyrighted work that I did not have permission to reproduce. Morally, I have absolutely no qualms with this. The author has been dead for decades. This particular edition isn't going to be republished. I gave full credit to the original author.

Legally, that's no excuse for me, as I am a U.S. citizen and subject to its laws no matter what I might think of them. That's why I put the book up only for a limited amount of time. Prior to 1997, it was not criminal in the U.S. to redistribute copyrighted materials if you were not charging for them, although you could still be subject to civil penalties. 1997's "No Electronic Theft" Act changed that, making it criminal to violate copyrights whether or not you were profiting.

I am very happy that Vogel's wonderful text has been further compressed and made available on Rhodium's site, but I hope it doesn't threaten his net presence. I'm sure there are a good number of people who would like to see shut down on any pretext.

Oh, and I thank all the bees who have been burnishing my ego. It is wonderful to know that the fruits of my labor have helped so many others in addition to myself. Consider it my repayment to a wonderful community of chemists that has provided many hours of entertainment and enlightenment.

19th century digital boy


  • Guest
no problem - my point revolved around moral ...
« Reply #45 on: August 05, 2002, 11:23:00 PM »
no problem - my point revolved around moral perception which you Polverone have dead on the money. but that legal horseshit of fairuse verbage is just some legalistic crap about ripping off someone and still feeling all is right with world.

if one is involved in marginal or worse abject criminal activity (way overstated) then one should be honest about it (to ones own self) and not screw his/her perspective into believing that lawyers are human beings. lawyers write the laws. (i should stop here)

then as a totally monopolistic industry they must hired to interpret same. fuck the lawyers who prey on the hoards made subserviant through their own avarice and deceit. write the laws so any rational  man or woman can understand them and stand in court and speak in their own behalf without having to tribute to their (lawyers) unholy threats of deprivation of life, liberty and some vestige of a free interprise system of elected, represenatative government.

OTEECEE & meeeee!!!!


  • Guest
I feel called to respond to the part of the post ...
« Reply #46 on: August 21, 2002, 09:42:00 PM »
I feel called to respond to the part of the post that "said the U.S. Congress periodically extends copyrights whenever it looks like Mickey Mouse might enter the public domain. Copyright now extends to 75 years after the death of the author."

First the "author" is the creator of the work which is usually an indiviuall not a huge faceless corporation as portrayed - although these corps are the funding source for many many indiviuals and families on this planet.

The law was expanded across the board. THat is it now covers all originiators of art or other original creative work. Automatically, no paper works. BEing one who derives part of his very existence from creation thus partially described I like it. Perhaps if Polydor REcords one day rips your asshole shitless by violating your copywrite you might come to appreciate it also.

The copywright laws by and large protect those who cannot afford to protective themselves. Any aregument?

True the larger companies fall under its protection also but I wouldn't give up the current wording for anything. (except maybe a time machine)

So take what sounds to me a load of socialist bullshit and chuck it down the sewer. And when you consider the laws think also about how it applies and benefits common people and not just your aggenda ridden point of view.


  • Guest
> And when you consider the laws think also ...
« Reply #47 on: August 21, 2002, 09:53:00 PM »
> [..] And when you consider the laws think also about how it
>applies and benefits common people [...]

Don't feed the troll. Smash his throat in instead.


  • Guest
Am I feeding a troll?
« Reply #48 on: August 24, 2002, 07:52:00 AM »
I don't know. I do feel bad that this has drifted so far away from "Chemistry Discourse." I don't begrudge you your ability to profit from creative works that you have produced. But in the case of the 3rd edition of Vogel's organic chemistry book, Citizen Kane, "Mack the Knife," and a million other copyrighted works, the original creators are dead. They're not deriving any benefit from increased terms of copyright. Sure, their heirs may benefit, but I don't think people should just mooch off of work done by grandpa 60 years ago. I may be in the minority here; after all, the US Congress doesn't share my views.

I would consider a reasonable term of copyright for works by an individual creator to be 30 years or until the creator dies plus 10 years, whichever is longer. Any heirs/assignees of the creator would have plenty of time to make the transition to productive careers of their own without undue hardship. Any middlemen (record companies, publishers, and the like) would also have ample time to recoup their costs.

For works not produced/owned by an individual, I'd say that a flat 50 years, no renewal, is a reasonable term of copyright. Copyright is an incentive to produce creative works, not an inalienable right up there with life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The deal is that the government enforces a monopoly on the reproduction of your works for a limited time and in return you (the creator) make stuff that you wouldn't bother making without that time-limited monopoly. If the creator's monopoly is never protected, people have less incentive to create and cultural richness suffers. If the creator's monopoly is protected too long (say, long after their death), works don't diffuse into the common cultural storehouse called the public domain and cultural richness suffers. The government shouldn't serve as guarantor of monopolies on the reproduction of copyrighted works unless it serves the public interest and not just a tiny minority.

19th century digital boy


  • Guest
« Reply #49 on: August 24, 2002, 12:46:00 PM »
If the creator's monopoly is protected too long (say, long after their death), works don't diffuse into the common cultural storehouse called the public domain and cultural richness suffers.

I agree!
Now with the internet its a whole new world.  Haveing this kind of info available online is powerful, it should bee available.

Those who give up essential liberties for temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety


  • Guest
the open society and copyright
« Reply #50 on: August 24, 2002, 05:51:00 PM »
This reminds me of LINUX

Firstly - thank you all within this community for the interesting hours or reading and thinking that your discourse has brought into my life. I am grateful for it.

I do not have much to say chemically at this stage - perhaps later if I eventually get to understand what it is that I am thinking.

However - I feel compelled to contibute to this discussion of freedom, rights and intellectual property = which is current and has been continuing for some time. I feel that the issues of copyright law and the law of the invisible individual are interestingly cast into a dimensional twist here. Issues of reformation and progress through clear headed thinking arise. I feel that the issue of right and wrong about drugs, and the issues of human freedom - the rights of the individual within a culture where your freedoms stop where your neighbour's begin - and (sorry to be long winded) the economics of the greater picture that we create merely be being part of it all is a great opener. No drugs involved! We really have to think clearly about where we are going - what kind of a world we want to intend for tomorrow. Do you intend a world in which there are monopolistic entities that dictate your lifestyle and behaviour? It may be a good world in which there is no polution and no crime. However - what will your personal state of mind be? Numb?

I personally and grateful to be able to read Vogel's third edition. It is a fantastic book!  I think everyone should read it.  I bought the fifth edition in hard cash - and consider the third edition to be a blessed exercise in recent scientific pratical history. I deeply applaud the courage of the vector who made this possible - and cannot think for a moment that what this person did is bad. Maybe it is not legal... Oh dear. Now what? How great is courage - notably in our civilisation where none shall do no wrong.

Well, now er, we look at the context of it all and think about it. I have thought hard and long about saying anything about anything on an internet discussion forum because it has always turned into flames and rhetoric and something nasty that I would really not be part of. But this issue - especially seeing as the parallels with the computer industry and issues of freedom there are too hard to get over ones social conscience - make me do this post.

I hope that the next one will be a simply wonderful piece of chemistry whereby mothballs are transformed magically into the deepest velvet night. ... howevelvet

What follows is a summary of thoughts I have been having about this issue for weeks now. Sorry for the long post, Editor - feel free to edit - but this is the important bit.  The aforegoing was just gentle introduction...  Thanks again for your patient passion about chemistry and life.

Copyright extension challenge by Free Software Foundation. See

Note that the Free Software Foundation is challenging the constitutionality of implicitly interminable extension of copyright as a flawed concept. This is of interest mainly to the open source community – especially the linux folk – but it pertains to the current argument. The petition hinges on the basic and fundamental departure point of freedom of information exchange in a technological society.

There are other signs that copyright cannot be applied in a completely general way. Patent rights of essential curative drugs in times of epidemic for example. Anthrax emergencies and AIDS being notable in our recent history.

Also pertinent is the race for possession of the human genome. There are private companies holding patents on human genes. Is this copyrightable?

So – where does copyright fit into society? How does possession of information compare to possession of goods or property? In the case of property Zimbabwe is breaking rules by the clump these days.

Can copyright ever be an issue of automatic dispensation or does each claim to copyright have to be considered on its own merits?

Anyway – this is a deeply fascinating current issue in practical philosophy. As far a Vogel’s third edition goes – what difference does it make to the estate that Vogel is public domain ahead of time for a book that is in any case out of print and will not be reprinted? Chemistry hobbyists of all flavors would benefit far more – and some of these people are teachers who would add value to their work by having access to this great work of scientific literature. Not to mention those who would merely like to read the great work for its intrinsic beauty.

Too much proprietary knowledge leads to monopolies, for example Microsoft Corp. domination of the computer software industry. In science hogging essential experimental results can foretell disaster as emergency groups are blocked from accessing information that could shorten their search for important solutions to problems menacing the globe. Sometimes breaking or rather circumventing wrong or outdated laws is necessary – certainly it is one of the signs of a free and democratic society.

I don’t think this is fanciful – society has changed a lot since Jefferson’s casting of copyright. Copyright will evolve. Whether eternal copyright in perpetuity in the guise of fractional modification is an advance is a question that is currently being asked.


  • Guest
My opinion might be a bit too cynical, but alas.
« Reply #51 on: August 24, 2002, 07:05:00 PM »
My opinion might be a bit too cynical, but alas. IMO, the whole discussion is about `ownership', and how far you can define ownership. And most of all: how can ownership be made profitable?

The open-source movement states that ideas are free, and therefore can not and should not be sold for money. Software is basically `ideas written down'. So software should be free too. And if you take things a bit further, music or any form of creative expression should be free too.

You could take things even more further: any mental state should be free. Which means that for example, drugs (in the general form) should be free too, apart from production costs (eat that, mr SaintCyrill!).

Education ditto:if you go for a free society, it is insane that you have to invest big $$ for a title, or some knowledge. Sure, you should pay for your teachers for their teaching, but not for their knowledge.
In this respect, the US might be not so free as they think they are.

You can imagine that the ideas of picture is not quite like how big corporations like to see it. You can't make a decent profit when everything is free. In the ideal world according to big corporations, you don't own anything. You lease everything. And everything you do `own' will be made obsolete as soon as possible, requiring you to `upgrade', or `take additional courses'.

A side effect is that big corporations do not like lone wolfs, or `einzelganger'. If you don't have the same interests as the `common people', it becomes to expensive to produce interesting stuff for you. Yeah, big corporations say that `due to developments in information technology, things can be tailor-made', but there's a very limited choice. Basically, it's the choice between a blue or a red car. Wow. That's choice. And is that freedom?

Of course, if you're a `common man', nothing of this actually matters.


  • Guest
open source
« Reply #52 on: August 25, 2002, 05:51:00 AM »

> The open-source movement states that ideas are free, and therefore
> can not and should not be sold for money.

this is wrong! the open source movement definitely says that your work
can and shall be sold for money.

what they say is that ideas are free and that the best thing you can
do with your hard work is to place it under the GPL, because this will
mean that everybody profits from your code and that other people can
and probably will contribute to your code and you and everybody will profit
this way.

they totally clearly say that everybody is owner of the code he writes
and that the author can decide what shall happen with his code.

the founder of the FSF, stallman, has written millions of lines of code
and he defines to the point what can and what cannot be done with his code.
further he offers us his (imho perfect!) licence so we can put code under
this licence too.

nowhere does he say that commercial software is free to copy!

couch terrorist


  • Guest
>> The open-source movement states that ...
« Reply #53 on: August 25, 2002, 08:04:00 PM »

>> The open-source movement states that ideas are free, and therefore
>> can not and should not be sold for money.

> this is wrong! the open source movement definitely says that your work
> can and shall be sold for money.

Woops, serious oversight from my side. You're completely right; they even state that they would _like_ it if you distributed free software for money; as long as you provide the source with it.

(dammit, now I would like to know who came up with the `information should be free' idea)


  • Guest
free as in...
« Reply #54 on: August 26, 2002, 11:54:00 AM »
> as long as you provide the source with it.

well, kindof. as long as you make the source easily available.
and others can distribute your source too. so as you see,
the money transfer is very much based on voluntariness.

money will for example be paid for the implementation
of a certain feature.

maybe you know the free techno movement, where people
organise techno parties, were you can, but don't have to,
pay entrance. it's a similar principle.

> (dammit, now I would like to know who came up with the
> `information should be free' idea)

there's that famous slogan of the open source movement:
"free as in speech not as in beer". (not that i'm not a
big fan of free beer!!)


back to the topic:

imho this is a case of "fair use". the software analogue would be
abandonware. old software, that is not available for sale
for a long time and nobody cares if you copy it or not.

couch terrorist


  • Guest
Whew, are we off topic or what?
« Reply #55 on: September 02, 2002, 10:19:00 AM »
I will gladly publish things that are out of print on my page, as the author cannot lose anything by me making something that isn't even sold anymore publicly available.