One little quibble, MP3s are not infinitely perfect through copies.
That's incorrect. MP3 is a lossy compression algorithm, so the MP3 will not be a perfect copy of the original. However, you can copy that MP3 as many times as you want without losing anything further. Each subsequent copy will be identical to the first MP3.
Many serious music fans use lossless files like flac to copy and store music data, which by its very name, verifies that there is a degradation of data and quality as MP3s are copied.
Lossless means exactly what it says - no loss. The copy contains all the information in the original. Your sentence starts out using flac as an example and then suddenly switches to MP3 so I'm not entirely sure what you're saying.
The notion of infinitely perfect digital versions no matter how many times they're reproduced is a mythical idea itself not supported by reality.
No, it's quite real. Do you think if you copied a Word file, and then copied the copy, and so on, it would eventually "degrade" until it couldn't be opened any more? No, each copy is an exact and perfect copy of the original. The same is true of any type of file (unless the file gets corrupted, in which case it won't be slightly subtly different, it will be completely borked).
that is according to the US copyright office. If you did not create the work, you cannot make money off the work without permission from the creators of said work. You can do what ever you wish with it...
"Making money" is not one of the exclusive rights granted by the copyright statute. You also cannot "do whatever you wish with it" as long as you do not make money. You cannot violate any of the exclusive rights unless it's fair use, whether you make any money or not. And you can make as much money as you want with it as long as you do not violate any of those rights.
The tangible expression clause allows it to be freely recreated *but not re-branded* without permission as long as the newer creation does not make money.
"Only" 1 in 10 stops resulting in a summons or arrest? That actually doesn't sound all that bad to me.
"The New York City stop-and-frisk program is a practice of the New York City Police Department by which a police officer who reasonably suspects a person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a felony or a penal law misdemeanor, stops and questions that person, and, if the officer reasonably suspects he or she is in danger of physical injury, frisks the person stopped for weapons."
I think they need to work on their reasonable suspicion if they're wrong 90% of the time.
The new patent is only on the new delivery method. That's why this is a bad example of evergreening.
It's evergreening because the new patent plus the FDA not approving the old version for generics means the patent is effectively extended. Why is the old version only too dangerous now that there's a new patent on a new version?
How could a statement that is written as if it reminds you of something actually be an official decision to transfer rights?
I don't understand the confusion. If it were a piece of paper that said "By signing you confirm that Craiglist is the exclusive..." etc., that would seem to me an obviously legitimate contract. The only issue is whether click-through agreements are legitimate contracts, which has nothing to do with the wording. Am I missing something?