2006 Senate Bill 1125 (Regulate use of music group names )

Public Act 508 of 2006

[Comments on this legislation] [Post new comment] [Text and Analysis] [Add to Watch List]
[Previous] [Next]

Introduced by Sen. Martha G. Scott (D) on March 9, 2006, to prohibit the unauthorized use of the name of a recording music group by a performing music group, unless at least one band member belonged to the original group, and certain other specified conditions are met.
- Referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee on March 9, 2006.
  - Reported in the Senate on June 7, 2006, with the recommendation that the bill pass.
- Amendment offered in the Senate on June 8, 2006, to clarify that a "tribute" group still could not use the original group's name. The amendment passed in the Senate by voice vote on June 8, 2006.
Passed in the Senate (37 to 0) on June 13, 2006. [Vote Details and Comments]
Received in the House on June 13, 2006.
- Referred to the House Commerce Committee on June 13, 2006.
  - Reported in the House on December 5, 2006, without amendment and with the recommendation that the bill pass.
Passed in the House (103 to 5) on December 13, 2006, to prohibit the unauthorized use of the name of a recording music group by a performing music group, unless at least one band member belonged to the original group, and certain other specified conditions are met. [Vote Details and Comments]
Signed by Gov. Jennifer Granholm on December 28, 2006.

Most Recent Comments

1) Why? [by Anonymous Citizen on June 14, 2006]
Why is this a Bill? Don't the people in Lansing have ANYTHING better to do with their time? Why not criminalize wearing helmets when riding a motorcycle?
Reply

Line

2) They don't qualify for special education because... [by Anonymous Citizen on April 25, 2006]
discrepancy model testing DISCRIMINATES against dyslexics and they FREQUENTLY don't qualify. This problem needs to be addressed at this level as well. CTOPP screening can be done at this level as well. These new requirements will make it more difficult for dyslexics to ever graduate, so help them out with screening and special education staff KNOWING how to intervene. Requiring dyslexics to learn a foreign language is probably not a good idea since they struggle with their native one. Think about this as you make harder requirements. What about dyslexic stakeholders? What are you doing for them to help them graduate? Spend our tax money wisely and with efficient and effective models for dyslexia intervention and identification. The discrepancy model testing is over. Be ready to replace it. What is Washington, D.C. doing about it? Be in the know. Spend wisely!
Reply

Line

3) Wrong Bill [by Anonymous Citizen on March 14, 2006]
Just as a point of fact, SB 1125 is a bill that adresses certain “unfair trade practices,” not education. The bill to watch -- for those interested in education -- is SB 1124, also introduced on March 9, but by Sen. Kuipers et al.

SB 1124 closely reflects recommended high school graduation requirements made by the state Board of Education last December. It is a vast improvement over HB 5606, which was passed by the House in early March, principally because SB 1124 eliminates legislative involvement in course content development that the House wants to require.

Reply

Line

View Full Conversation