Slashdot Mirror

They've been trying to copyright fashion for years.

That promise baffled me, since the text of every bill, including intermediary versions and the final version, has been available online for a long time. True, THOMAS could be easier to navigate, but it already gets the job done.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d111:HR00414:@@@L&summ2=m&

According to THOMAS, he is also sponsoring several other stupid bills that would:

"Encouraging employers and online dating sites to use sex offender registries for background checks."

and

"To amend title 4, United States Code, to declare English as the official language of the Government of the United States, and for other purposes."

and

"To provide for the establishment of the Science and Technology Homeland Security International Cooperative Programs Office, and for other purposes."

Source - http://www.thomas.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/?&Db=d110&querybd=@FIELD(FLD003+@4((@1(Rep+King++Peter+T.))+00635))

Representative King's website is: http://peteking.house.gov/

According to it, Rep. King is Ranking Member of the Homeland Security Committee and also serves on the Financial Services Committee.

Beyond that, he also introduced a similar bill back in 2007 that died in committee then too. Hopefully the folks in Energy and Commerce will let this one die a quiet death too.

A better question: when is the U.S. Congress getting this? Could you please infect http://www.thomas.gov/ with a virus that reads legislation back to your Congressman before he foolishly votes on it?

Does anyone know the name or number of the bill in question?

The nearest match I can find on thomas.gov: http://www.thomas.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:s.01178: seems to date back to February, whereas the News.com story implies that the Bill was introduced on Oct 16.

She's gonna be pretty screwed according to the Terrorist Hoax Improvements Act of 2007...

Important to clarify the situation re Net radio's request to Congress -- they are in fact asking that rates be rolled back to previously agreed up per-station rates, rather then using this new per-track-per-listener formulation. They're certainly not asking for a "zero royalty rate," though it would in fact be fairer. (And over-the-air stations, frankly, should have been fighting for the Net radio stations' zero-royalty rates all along, since only an idiot didn't see this RIAA move coming -- the performers, or the performers' reps, have ben sulking for DECADES about the writers getting paid and not the performers. But that would require senses of both responsibility and history from the likes of Clear Channel, and, well...)

The bipartisan Net-radio proposal is BTW known as the Internet Radio Equality Act of 2007; you can read the House version and the Senate version. You can follow the whole saga and tell your Congresscritter what you think at savenetradio.org.

Important to clarify the situation re Net radio's request to Congress -- they are in fact asking that rates be rolled back to previously agreed up per-station rates, rather then using this new per-track-per-listener formulation. They're certainly not asking for a "zero royalty rate," though it would in fact be fairer. (And over-the-air stations, frankly, should have been fighting for the Net radio stations' zero-royalty rates all along, since only an idiot didn't see this RIAA move coming -- the performers, or the performers' reps, have ben sulking for DECADES about the writers getting paid and not the performers. But that would require senses of both responsibility and history from the likes of Clear Channel, and, well...)

The bipartisan Net-radio proposal is BTW known as the Internet Radio Equality Act of 2007; you can read the House version and the Senate version. You can follow the whole saga and tell your Congresscritter what you think at savenetradio.org.

Slightly OT: In Senate bill 1092, Sen. Chuck Hagel wants to triple the number of H-1B's granted next year to 'help' the high-tech industry.

Here's the full list of sponsors. I too will be sending a letter to Ms Eshoo.

Dude. You're the one who's incorrect. Here it is courtesy of the Library of Congress Thomas system, which is the final word on current bills before Congress.
http://www.thomas.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c109:6:./tem p/~c109lMFmHP:e939907: and the full bill
http://www.thomas.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c109:6:./tem p/~c109lMFmHP::

Dude. You're the one who's incorrect. Here it is courtesy of the Library of Congress Thomas system, which is the final word on current bills before Congress.
http://www.thomas.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c109:6:./tem p/~c109lMFmHP:e939907: and the full bill
http://www.thomas.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c109:6:./tem p/~c109lMFmHP::