Representative Actually Introduces Version Of Alberto Gonzales' Attempted Copyright Infringement Law

from the you-want-to-bet-on-that-pony? dept

Back in May, when US Attorney General Alberto Gonzales started pushing his ridiculous bill that would make copyright law much stronger we figured that it was simply Gonzales’ way of actually doing something unrelated to the widespread scandals coming out of his office. Given that nearly all of Congress seemed pretty pissed off at Gonzales (which still seems true today), we didn’t think anyone would actually introduce the proposed bill. However, there’s always someone. Rep. Steven Chabot has introduced a bill that’s very similar to what Gonzales proposed, including making “attempted copyright infringement” a criminal offense. It also increases the time copyright infringers can spend in jail. As the EFF notes, Chabot’s bill goes even further than Gonzales’ proposal in that it allows judges to apply statutory damages separately on each song of an album, rather than on the entire album (even as the recording industry only registers the copyrights on the entire album at a time). There are no co-sponsors to the bill and it seems unlikely to get very far, but it’s disappointing that it’s even been introduced at all. Why not head over to Washington Watch and give your opinion on the bill.

Filed Under: , , ,

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “Representative Actually Introduces Version Of Alberto Gonzales' Attempted Copyright Infringement Law”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
12 Comments
Mitch the Bitch says:

OK try this….

What were you talking about with your co-worker at lunch 2.5 years ago this Monday. I want to know EVERYTHING you said, and if you confuse ANYTHING you will get a 250K fine and go to jail for 2 years.

Go ahead, start…

Oh yea, by the way we didnt actually find ANY crimes at any point in this little investigation but you being confused during your testimony must ABSOLUTELY mean your Boss is guilty of something somewhere and must be removed…

Dhimmicrats are all idiots….

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

OK try this….

Try recalling parts of any conversations or even who contributed to the conversations or even that a conversation took place regarding any relevant decision YOU made, or should have made, or should have been aware was being made.

Go ahead, start…

I don’t think work would like real examples here, but any competent person could give hundreds. Word for word, no. But the general “he recommended this”, “she said that”. Not to mention reproducible research, memos, email, and minutes from meetings to jog the memory. People with real jobs do this all the time. If you make a decision, you have to have justification for the decision and may have to justify your decision to the boss. This almost always involves research and communication.

Of course if you don’t want to remember……

Sean says:

Re: Re:

“What were you talking about with your co-worker at lunch 2.5 years ago this Monday. I want to know EVERYTHING you said, and if you confuse ANYTHING you will get a 250K fine and go to jail for 2 years.

Go ahead, start…

Oh yea, by the way we didnt actually find ANY crimes at any point in this little investigation but you being confused during your testimony must ABSOLUTELY mean your Boss is guilty of something somewhere and must be removed…”

And I guess in your world absolute power doesn’t result in the total loss of personal freedoms. You might want to think things through before you start posting.

Believe it or not those guys that wrote Constitution knew a little something about democracy.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re: US Constitution

yeah, they knew that a democracy would require the immediate abolishing of slavery and equal rights for everyone, not just white property owners. couldn’t have that so we have a republic.

still better than anything that has preceeded, but it’s time to take it to the next level…

Gene says:

democracy vs republic

>>yeah, they knew that a democracy would require the immediate abolishing of slavery and equal rights for everyone, not just white property owners. couldn’t have that so we have a republic.

It’s the United STATES of America…not the United PEOPLE of America. The intent is that each state is a member and will govern itself.

>>next level.

I have no idea what this could be, but I think we need to go BACK to what the Constitution and get rid of 70% of the federal government and the various programs that take from one group of citizens and give to another group.

“Social security” will be insolvent then year I turn 65. Talk about getting nothing for something.

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Ctrl-Alt-Speech

A weekly news podcast from
Mike Masnick & Ben Whitelaw

Subscribe now to Ctrl-Alt-Speech »
Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...
Loading...