2011-12-07T16:17:25Z opencongress.org tag:opencongress.org,2011-07-08:/bill/112-h2471 2011-12-07T16:17:25Z Sparhawk2k wrote: This isn't for the purpose of invading anything. This gives people the RIGHT to give consent digitally. Which we couldn't do before. If you don't want to connect to Facebook, share what you're watching with friends, etc, you don't have to.<br/>View <a href="http://www.opencongress.org/bill/112-h2471/show">Bill</a> on OpenCongress 2011-10-27T20:02:30Z View <a href="http://www.opencongress.org/users/walker7/profile">walker7&#x27;s Profile</a> 2011-10-27T20:02:24Z View <a href="http://www.opencongress.org/users/Noetical/profile">Noetical&#x27;s Profile</a> 2011-10-27T16:06:34Z I am writing as your constituent in the 7th Congressional district of Washington. I oppose S.968 - PROTECT IP Act of 2011, and am tracking it using OpenCongress.org, the free public resource website for government transparency and accountability. I also oppose S.978 and H.R.3261. These are all just ways to censor the Internet, stifle innovation, and bully small companies and people without the money to defend themselves from litigation. It sets a horrible precedent that other countries can follow to allow even worse censorship. Companies like Google are already getting requests to remove evidence of acts such as police brutality. Right now they're fighting it. But what if somebody was playing music in the background. Suddenly it's gone. I understand why people want to "protect IP" but this is not the way to go about it and does more harm than good. This isn't going to stop anybody from downloading movies or music. tag:opencongress.org,2011-10-26:/bill/112-h3261 2011-10-27T16:06:34Z To promote prosperity, creativity, entrepreneurship, and innovation by combating the theft of U.S. property, and for other purposes.<br/>View <a href="http://www.opencongress.org/bill/112-h3261/show">Bill</a> on OpenCongress tag:opencongress.org,2011-07-08:/bill/112-h2471 2011-09-17T20:45:19Z Sparhawk2k wrote: What would people be opposing here? It seems like a very simple bill to correct an oversight? Are people so against letting Netflix do social networking with the user's permission?<br/>View <a href="http://www.opencongress.org/bill/112-h2471/show">Bill</a> on OpenCongress tag:opencongress.org,2011-07-08:/bill/112-h2471 2011-09-17T20:45:19Z Sparhawk2k wrote: What would people be opposing here? It seems like a very simple bill to correct an oversight? Are people so against letting Netflix do social networking with the user's permission?<br/>View <a href="http://www.opencongress.org/bill/112-h2471/show">Bill</a> on OpenCongress tag:opencongress.org,2011-07-08:/bill/112-h2471 2011-09-17T20:40:22Z Sparhawk2k wrote: What would people be opposing here? It seems like a very simple bill to correct an oversight? Are people so against letting Netflix do social networking?<br/>View <a href="http://www.opencongress.org/bill/112-h2471/show">Bill</a> on OpenCongress tag:opencongress.org,2011-07-08:/bill/112-h2471 2011-09-17T20:36:58Z To amend section 2710 of title 18, United States Code, to clarify that a video tape service provider may obtain a consumer's informed, written consent on an ongoing basis and that consent may be obtained through the Internet.<br/>View <a href="http://www.opencongress.org/bill/112-h2471/show">Bill</a> on OpenCongress tag:opencongress.org,2011-03-30:/bill/112-h1249 2011-09-09T12:54:59Z Sparhawk2k wrote: So I haven't read this yet but I've immediately got a question from the summary. "Changes the patent application system from one that awards patents to the first person to invent something to a system that awards the first person to file a patent application on an invention." Does that mean you could patent something that thousands of people have been doing already as long as you're the first person to file? Does prior art not mean anything?<br/>View <a href="http://www.opencongress.org/bill/112-h1249/show">Bill</a> on OpenCongress tag:opencongress.org,2011-05-25:/bill/112-h1981 2011-08-03T14:21:40Z To amend title 18, United States Code, with respect to child pornography and child exploitation offenses.<br/>View <a href="http://www.opencongress.org/bill/112-h1981/show">Bill</a> on OpenCongress tag:opencongress.org,2011-05-25:/bill/112-h1981 2011-08-03T14:20:53Z To amend title 18, United States Code, with respect to child pornography and child exploitation offenses.<br/>View <a href="http://www.opencongress.org/bill/112-h1981/show">Bill</a> on OpenCongress tag:opencongress.org,2011-05-12:/bill/112-s978 2011-07-07T14:52:56Z A bill to amend the criminal penalty provision for criminal infringement of a copyright, and for other purposes.<br/>View <a href="http://www.opencongress.org/bill/112-s978/show">Bill</a> on OpenCongress tag:opencongress.org,2011-01-25:/bill/112-s74 2011-06-28T11:49:31Z A bill to preserve the free and open nature of the Internet, expand the benefits of broadband, and promote universally available and affordable broadband service.<br/>View <a href="http://www.opencongress.org/bill/112-s74/show">Bill</a> on OpenCongress tag:opencongress.org,2011-01-26:/bill/112-h459 2011-05-09T19:20:17Z To require a full audit of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System and the Federal reserve banks by the Comptroller General of the United States before the end of 2012, and for other purposes.<br/>View <a href="http://www.opencongress.org/bill/112-h459/show">Bill</a> on OpenCongress tag:opencongress.org,2011-01-26:/bill/112-s202 2011-05-09T19:20:01Z A bill to require a full audit of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System and the Federal reserve banks by the Comptroller General of the United States before the end of 2012, and for other purposes.<br/>View <a href="http://www.opencongress.org/bill/112-s202/show">Bill</a> on OpenCongress tag:opencongress.org,2007:/person/400184 2011-03-02T13:08:46Z View profile for <a href="/people/show/400184_Rush_Holt">Rep. Rush Holt D-NJ</a> tag:opencongress.org,2011-01-19:/article/2171 2011-01-19T08:01:34Z Sparhawk2k wrote: First, I really don't want it repealed, especially in such a silly way. But I was wondering about one other technicality of the process. I know bills have to be approved by both the House and the Senate... But does it need to be the same year? Could the House pass it and nothing happen now because the Senate doesn't have the votes? And then when the Senate makeup changes, could they pass the House's bill without changes and have it go to the President? Even if the current House has also changed and wouldn't have passed that bill anymore? Obviously this is a rather far fetched scenario... I was just curious.<br/>View <a href="/article/show/2171-Why-the-Health-Care-Repeal-Vote-Really-is-Just-Symbolic">Article</a> on OpenCongress tag:opencongress.org,2011-01-05:/bill/112-h2 2011-01-18T12:55:40Z To repeal the job-killing health care law and health care-related provisions in the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010.<br/>View <a href="http://www.opencongress.org/bill/112-h2/show">Bill</a> on OpenCongress tag:opencongress.org,2007:/person/400109 2011-01-05T10:20:46Z View profile for <a href="/people/show/400109_Norman_Dicks"> Norman Dicks D-</a> tag:opencongress.org,2007:/person/400171 2011-01-05T10:20:43Z View profile for <a href="/people/show/400171_Doc_Hastings">Rep. Doc Hastings R-WA</a>