5 ms·

If it passes, then a married couple that films a sex tape and posts it on a pay-per-view tube site can be personally sued by any California resident for a share

If it passes, then a married couple that films a sex tape and posts it on a pay-per-view tube site can be personally sued by any California resident for a share of the profits unless they can prove that they used condoms while having sex. It also provides a way for civilians to discover the real names and residences of adult film actors. The law also specially names the author of the law (Michael Weinstein) and requires the state to pay for his legal bills in "enforcing" the law. The reason this is even an issue is that Michael Weinstein (whom I liken to "Jenny McCarthy meets Martin Shkreli"[0]) was pissed that OSHA didn't rule his way in his lawsuit against porn studio Treasure Island Media[1][2], so he took this statewide as an act of vengeance. [0] Aside from being virulently anti-science, he's also behind Prop 61, which ostensibly reduces the price of HIV drugs, but in actuality includes a special carve-out for the HMO he runs, locking in guaranteed profit for himself. [1] OSHA basically said "okay, you didn't use condoms when filming, but that's only worth a $100 fine, just as if you didn't have a first-aid kit on-site". [2] If you're at work right now, you Google that name at your own risk

jcranmer 10y ago
When I read your comment, my first reaction was "surely there's no way it can be that bad, this must just be partisan overreaction." After reading https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_60,_Condoms_in_Pornographic_Films_(2016) https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_60,_Condoms_i..., I found out that, yes, this proposition really is that terrible.
sandworm101 10y ago
It's been a while, but doesn't California have a bad on private laws? The listing of Michael Weinstein by name in the bill looks like a poisoned pill, something that everyone knows is unconstitutional but they are leaving it in so they can kill it later.
- mintplant 10y ago
  Or chimeracoder has made this up out of whole cloth and the law doesn't actually list him by name. I was surprised by this, too, so I dug up the full text. The only places I can find Weinstein's name are in the letterhead and the signature on the cover letter. Search for yourself: https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/initiatives/pdfs/15-0004%20%28Safer%20Sex%29_8.pdf https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/initiatives/pdfs/15-0004%20%...
neoCrimeLabs 10y ago
If I read and interpreted Prop 60 correctly too, it also looks like you can sue for any video re-posted regardless when it was originally released, and it becomes the responsibility of the defendant to prove the video was produced before Prop 60 came into effect (assuming it passes). In other words, someone pirates an old (pre-prop60) video, uploads it to a sharing site, someone can use it to sue the producers and the producers have to prove the video was produced and released before Prop-60 was enacted. Am I reading that right?
- jcranmer 10y ago
  There is a statute of limitations. It is 1 year from the date of the violation, or 1 year from the date the violation is discovered, or through the use of reasonable diligence, should have been discovered. I don't know enough about CA law to interpret what the second rule means--it sounds like it should mean at most a year from the date the video is posted, but the wording makes it imply that there's effectively no statue of limitations. It truly is horrible if you read the actual text.

jcranmer 10y ago

When I read your comment, my first reaction was "surely there's no way it can be that bad, this must just be partisan overreaction." After reading https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_60,_Condoms_in_Pornographic_Films_(2016) https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_60,_Condoms_i..., I found out that, yes, this proposition really is that terrible.

sandworm101 10y ago

It's been a while, but doesn't California have a bad on private laws? The listing of Michael Weinstein by name in the bill looks like a poisoned pill, something that everyone knows is unconstitutional but they are leaving it in so they can kill it later.

mintplant 10y ago
Or chimeracoder has made this up out of whole cloth and the law doesn't actually list him by name. I was surprised by this, too, so I dug up the full text. The only places I can find Weinstein's name are in the letterhead and the signature on the cover letter. Search for yourself: https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/initiatives/pdfs/15-0004%20%28Safer%20Sex%29_8.pdf https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/initiatives/pdfs/15-0004%20%...

neoCrimeLabs 10y ago

If I read and interpreted Prop 60 correctly too, it also looks like you can sue for any video re-posted regardless when it was originally released, and it becomes the responsibility of the defendant to prove the video was produced before Prop 60 came into effect (assuming it passes). In other words, someone pirates an old (pre-prop60) video, uploads it to a sharing site, someone can use it to sue the producers and the producers have to prove the video was produced and released before Prop-60 was enacted. Am I reading that right?

jcranmer 10y ago
There is a statute of limitations. It is 1 year from the date of the violation, or 1 year from the date the violation is discovered, or through the use of reasonable diligence, should have been discovered. I don't know enough about CA law to interpret what the second rule means--it sounds like it should mean at most a year from the date the video is posted, but the wording makes it imply that there's effectively no statue of limitations. It truly is horrible if you read the actual text.