FSC APAP Adds 3 More Tubesites
By David Maxwell, XBIZ.com
Fri, Feb 04 2011 11:30am PST
CANOGA PARK, Calif. — Free Speech Coalition’s Anti-Piracy Protection Program (APAP) has added three more tubesites to its list of participants. The latest tubesites to join the program are TNAflix, Empflix and XHamster, bringing the total number of sites participating in its Mediawise program to 12.
Other tubesites participating in the program include XVideos, Pornhub, XNXX, Tube8, Xtube, Spankwire, Keezmovies, ExtremeTube and Mofosex.
FSC APAP is made up of several components, including Videotracker and Mediawise.
Videotracker can be accessed only by participating FSC APAP content providers. With Videotracker, providers have access to copyright counseling, content tracking, documentation of infringements, and sending of DMCA notices. All actions are documented in evidence packets the provider can use for litigation or research purposes. Participants are charged a monthly fee to use this service.
Mediawise is the monetization component of APAP and available to all current FSC member content providers — free of charge.
Mediawise technology uses audio-video-metadata fingerprints to stop content from being uploaded. Content providers fingerprint their entire library and their content goes up only in the format specified by the content provider. Instead of pirated content going up, the software applies the business rules the content provider wants for that title and either truncates the content, or provides a trailer — both with an overlay ad that takes the viewer to the content provider’s site. With this approach, the content provider not only blocks stolen content from being uploaded, but also realizes a potential new revenue stream.
FSC APAP participants that use both the Videotracker and Mediawise components retain a 60 percent rev share once a piece of content converts. FSC members that utilize only Mediawise retain a 50 percent rev share. FSC functions as an “affiliate,” by collecting the remaining percentages, which are divided between the tubesites and software technology provider Vobile.
“This is an extremely exciting time for adult content providers,” FSC Executive Director Diane Duke said. “Soon, a source that has been a financial drain on their businesses may soon be a new and vibrant source of revenue. Tubesites are here to stay. The difference is, now they are working for us.”
FSC APAP is currently in the final stages of getting all participating content providers to fingerprint their libraries and designate their desired business rules. The tubesites are applying the fingerprints and business rules to their sites.
Representatives from FSC APAP will attend the Content Protection Retreat presented by Pink Visual, to be held at the Sofitel Hotel next Feb 6-7.
For more information on FSC APAP, call (818) 348-9373, visit FSCAPAP.com, or contact diane@freespeechcoalition.com.
Thank Gawd the FSC has solved the piracy issue ….. not.
The most important sentence in this entire article……”FSC funtions as a ‘affiliate’ and collects the remaining, which are divided between the tubesites and software technology provider Vobile.”
And nobody smells anything fishy here?
Maybe Mikee Whiteacre and Julie whats her name can do a documentary of this NON-PROFIT organization called FSC. LOL
Funny how all these porn apologists are so quick to go after those anti porn non profit groups, but AIM and FSC get a free pass. AIM uses performer money to hire lawyers to defend producers, and then closes shop and somehow all of the assests from that non profit are now the property of the new for profit privately owned clinic. Must be nice for that new private corporation to get a whole fully staffed and fully outfitted clinic for nothing. How did that happen? And now the FSC has a plan to collect money for the tubesites. Only in porn. LOL
PERFORMERS, your testing costs are no longer tax deductible, not as a 501c3 donation, or a business expense.
Is AIM telling performers that their tests are no longer tax deductible? Are they still charging producers for access to test results?
Whiteacre, are you going to look inot this?
As a matter of fact, Joe, I have MANY questions about this maneuver of AIM’s. I will withhold further comment until I learn more. But yes, I am curious to learn more about this restructuring. The reason behind it is obvious (and necessary), I think, but the structure is something I’d like to see developed and disclosed.
As for FSC, you are misinterpreting the APAP program, and you are implying that somehow FSC is turning a profit — or at least rolling in dough. FSC has not raised its membership rates EVER. NOT ONCE since it began decades ago. Every service I have ever provided to FSC — directing the anti-piacy PSAs, working at a couple of their benefits, as examples — was done pro bono. I’ve never taken a dime from FSC, and I paid for my membership in cash. From what I’ve seen, they do not throw money away. Diane Duke does not travel with an entourage on FSC’s dime — unlike what Shelley Lubben does with Pink Cross. And that’s a fact.
“The reason behind it is obvious”
Yes, spending all the performer’donations’ on lawyers to protect producers, as they themselves admit right on their own website.
“The structure is something i would like to see developed and disclosed.”
Michael, do you actually think this will ever happen? They will never disclose it themselves, we all know that. If they were inclined to do so they would do it up front, tranparently, and they would do it right now. WHY WAIT? Why not tell us who owns it, who runs it, who the associates are, and do it up front, without having people demand this information from them, or find it out themselves?
Michael, you have constanly claimed to know everybody else’s motives, and you have no problem speculating on everybody elses motives, but you become suspicioulsy quiet and say things like ‘I will withhold comment until I learn more” But spouting your pure speculation on everybody else is just fine with you, but then you give this bullshit, lawyer like answer when it comes to themotives of yourown industry. You dont fool anybody. And yours and Julies videos did get another 7 hits in the last month.
How is it that you can know everybody’s motives, except the motives of your own industry?
But I must say Michael,
You are trying to do something about all of this, and you are trying to improve the industry, and for that of course you deserve to be commended. I hope our debates here might help push you a little harder to help make changes. You are doing a hell of alot more than a hell of alot of people combined.
Joe, it’s not that I don’t have thoughts about the motives of the persons involved at the new AIM, but I think it’s WAY too early to write Mitchell and company off. I mean they just made the announcement! Let’s see what comes out. I’m as eager as you to have questions answered. All we know is that it’s now a private corporation, and Mitch says that the board is serving without compensation. Or that’s all I’ve heard.
I know your feelings about FSC, but even you have to admit, if no one defends the industry’s right to exist, there will be even less work for all these performers. If no one helps the producers fight piracy and other threats, production levels will drop down farther. FSC is a trade association and lobbying group. That’s what it’s supposed to do. Very, very few adult performers are members. If more joined, and voted, the agenda might change. But there is tremendous complacency in this industry. If there’s any one reason why I do what I do it’s to fight that complacency, that apathy — not Lubben or Weinstein or any other demagogues.
But, although we differ, I heartily agree that there is TREMENDOUS room for change and improvement in this industry — just as there is in this state and this country and on this planet. I am filled with hope.
Gee The FSC might as well hold up a banner saying hey we are criminals.
you start with the worlds largest tube sites who steal everyones content and make themselves powerful
now enter the FSC lieutenants who say we can fix your problems, give us and the tubesites a percentage of your business and we will make sure you aren’t robbed. If you dont agree to this extortion then hey you are on your own.
Really FSC? Is this how you scumbags want to present yourselves as problem solvers and advocates for our enemy? This is just a cyber version of the mobs protection racket.
Shame on you are you that fucking crooked or just that fucking stupid?
And people used to wonder why I have issues with the FSC….
Right Mike, instead of banding together under an umbrella program, it would be much more efficient and effective for producers to double each other’s efforts independently. Good thinking.
What would you suggest be done with these tube sites? Use good ol’ southern charm on ’em?
And no, I don’t think people used to wonder at all, Mike, why you had issues with FSC — they just didn’t give a shit about your views.
Gee Mikey looks like I hit a nerve
I have said many times what the industry should do but thats rather beside the point. By your logic its better for me to pay the tubesites NOT to rob me than to do nothing? Come on I had thought you smarter than that.
There’s a reason you dont see a lot of my stuff pirated, and I’m not putting money into the pockets of my enemy through an intermediary acting as an enforcer (against me) while said intermediary is trying to tell me he is on my side..ya fuck you.
@joe_know are you telling the women you “rescue” that the donations they draw to your organization are just going to wind up helping you to create a new face for yourself that God didn’t give you?
Cowards who hide behind aliases make me sick.
@Monica,
I had no idea that I was part of an organization that rescues women, and I had no idea that people were sending me donations. If you could let me know the name of this organization that I belong to that would be very helpful.
Monica, can you tell me where they are sending my paychecks, becuase I dont know. Thanks for informing me about this, I had no idea.
Monica, perhaps you could have a future as a fiction writer after youre done with porn.
Nice to know it makes you sick, most porn performers just get sick with gonn/chlam, trichomonis, PID,HPV and according to Ernest Greene, 166 performers, mostly gay porn, have died of AIDS since 1999. Does that make you sick?
http://theger.wordpress.com/2009/10/18/lets-address-the-issues/
Ernies 166 dead gay porn star statements is in one of his rambling comments here. He also says AIM ‘officially’ is not in support of mandatory condoms. Imagine that, a HEALTH clinic advocating unprotected sex with prostitutes. Only in porn.
And now lets see how a non profit organization, that finished in the red every year, manages to stay afloat without that non profit status. And no more tax deductions for those tests. And will the new, private owned AIM accept insurance?(and seeing how the pcr test is not covered by the ast majorityof insurance companies, probably not)
@Michael,
“Mitch says the board is serving without compensation.
Can you cite where this statement was made?
@Mike – First of all, Mike, you don’t have nearly as much content as the major producers. You also assume that it’s in as much demand as other content. The lack of demand for your stuff is just as likely an explanation, and probably even more-so, as the brilliance of your plan.
No, it is not better to pay the tubesites not to rob you. And you should not do nothing. Where do you get this stuff? That’s ridiculous and it has less to do with reality than it does your twisted interpretation of APAP. Ok, you hate FSC. Then don’t join. But tell me, are all the studios who joined APAP– we’re talking hundreds of thousands of hours of content — just plain stupid?
Don’t you think they evaluated the costs vs. benefits? If they thought your ideal approach would work for them, they would have followed it and not joined APAP. You ideas failed in the marketplace of ideas. That’s it.
So, please tell me again, how is it that a large group of companies working independently and needlessly doubling their efforts is a more efficient tactic than a coherent umbrella program like APAP? Why do you think Pink Visuals keeps throwing content protection meeting to bring the industry together and focus its efforts? And again, using your tiny catalog as an example is way off base.
@joe Once again, without universal testing in the gay side of the business — which provides a barrier to entry for HIV+ talents as well as ongoing surveillance of the talent pool — there IS NO WAY TO KNOW when or where gay performers contracted their HIV. Full stop.
If someone who has HIV makes some gay porn movies sometime before he succombs to AIDS, that, AS A MATTER OF LOGIC AND REASON, does NOT mean that porn gave it to him, or that he even HAD IT WHILE IN PORN. There is no accurate way to know, staistically. Period.
The statement that 166 gay porn performers dies of AIDS only means that 166 men who at one time appeared in gay porn later died of AIDS. People who appear in porn also die of cancer. That does not mean that porn causes cancer.
Yes, HIV is transmittable. But, the vast majority of gay porn is shot with condoms. So, what are you saying, that the condom-only mandate that the latex peddlers like Weinstein support is ineffective? If you’re implying that 166 people somehow contracted and/or spread HIV while using condoms, then doesn’t that destroy the argument for mandatory condoms?
the guy who owns the convenience store in hells kitchen evaluates the cost too.
I have told porners how to keep control of their content many times, you can argue if my niche is in demand all you like but I amke a decent living at it so I’m happy.
Paying criminals not to rob you isn’t the solution Michael and I am surprised that you would advocate that it is.
I advocate no such thing, and neither does FSC.
And, for the record, I’m glad you make a living doing what you love. More power to you.
Now, it’s back to the game for me.
Regards,
MW
@Michael,
YOU STILL JUST DONT GET IT.
It does NOT matter where they initially got infected. The fact is, AFTER they get infected they bring it with them to every single set they work on, and expose every single person they work with.
With the STAGGERING number of HIV positive gay porn performers you only need to use ONE OUNCE of common sense to know that indeed, some infectiona are happening on set, only a fool would deny that.
And you are correct, without the comprehensive testing there is no direct way to tell where it is happening. AND THAT IS THE EXACT REASON THAT THE GAY INDUSTRY DOESN TEST, SO THERE IS NO ‘PROOF.’
And Michael, you know as well as everybody else, that what you see on the finished producet is not everything that happened on the set that day. It is well known that alot of other stuff goes on, espcecially in the gay porn side.
Why do you constanly ignore the fact that after someone get HIV, whther it be on set or in private life, that they then expose evey single person that they have contact with, either on set, or in their private life.
OSHA is all about “WORKPLACE EXPOSURE” and the FACT that performers are being exposed is the issue, not WHERE they got it. The industry can keep repeating over and over again that they got it off the set all they want, that is NOT going to infuence OSHA one single bit. It hasnt in the past and it wont in the future. This is almost as funny as the industry constantly saying that it is safer to have unprotected sex with a prostitute(porn perfomrer) than someone you meet in a bar.
166 dead gay porn stars does not destroy the argument for condoms. It shows that producers have no qualms about hiring HIV positive people to engage in sex with other people. It shows that producers could care less about the talent. It shows that the ‘inusdtry’ can talk all they want about caring about performers, but their ACTIONS(knwoingly hiring HIV positive performers) speak for themselves.
Michael, what do you think of gay porn producers who knowingly hire HIV positve performers.
And it shows that the AGENTS could care less. Booking crossover talent, like Cameron reid, they could care less, and their own actions prove this. And the industry continues to do business with the AGENTS who are booking these scenes, and producers who are shooting the scenes. Talk is cheap, the ACTIONS of the industry shows the true colors, and the fact that these people who do this are still doing business as usual speaks much louder than the public statements about caring for the talent.
@Michael.
Brooke Ashley won her workers comp case WITHOUT ever showing one single peice of evidence that anyone on any set she ever worked on was HIV positive. Not one single test result, not one single person testifying that they had any knowledge of any persone being HIV positive. And she still won the case. WHY?
Because the courts used common sense. It was ruled that their was a high probablity that this infection could have happened in the workplace, given the very nature of the work itself. NO NEED TO PRESENT ANY EVIDENCE OF AN HIV+ performer.
Just like alot of carpal tunnel workers comp cases. Yes, the employee spends alot of time at the keyboard at work, but then that employee goes home and uses the keyboard aT HOME TOO. Who is to say that the carpal tunnel isnt a result of that keyboard work at HOME, using your logic. But thats NOT how workers comp and OSHA works, and you just dont seem to get that. You want this irrefutable evidence of HIV transmission in the workplace, and it is simply NOT NECESSARY in the court, as has been proven time and time again. Your petty lawyer like argument of ,’they got it off the set’ is useless in this debate, and is not going to win this battle. That argument might score points on porn industry message boards, but it looses in court every single time. Its about EXPOSURE, and the ‘likelyhood’ that the injury occured at work. You need to get that through your skull, it is the basis for all of these actions by OSHA, and until you accept this fact youre doing nothing but preaching to the choir with little baloney excuses that look good here but dont carry water in the real world.
No, Joe, you just don’t get it.
If you don’t know WHEN they got it you CANNOT LOGICALLY SAY that they brought it to any set. Why do you not understand this?
For the very last time, in gay porn where there is (for the most part) NO testing, and certainly no UNIVERSAL testing, there is no way to KNOW if ANY performer has brought ANYTHING onto a set. PERIOD.
You like to infer that each and every one of these 166 cases contracted HIV on set, because it suits your worldview. But it does not follow that 166 deaths can all be attributed to a specific type of transmission just because you say so.
Common sense is not scientifically valid. High probability IS more relevant, but it’s not controlling as a blanket rule to examine statistical data– why? BECAUSE YOU HAVE TO EXAMINE EACH OF THE 166 CASES. How long was each person in the business? How many sets did he work on? Were they still active in production at the time of diagnosis? If not, how long after leaving the industry were they diagnosed? What other “high risk” activity might they have been engaging in.
The Brooke Ashley case is different. Why? Because she was not a member of a population with an enormous percentage of HIV infection. AND SHE DID A CONDOM-FREE ANAL GANG BANG. Hello! In that instance it was much easier to draw the inference that she got it on set — ESPECIALLY after you throw in Marc Wallice and his altered tests. These elements must be factored together.
Sure, the regulators would like to take an otherwise unheard of “zero-risk” approach to porn production — a standard to which no other industry is held, and sure they’d like to claim that all infections happened at work (for purposes of their own power play) but you and I both know that the facts don’t support that. But you don’t want to look at the facts; you say they’re not relevant. You want to make convenient generalizations which support your agenda.
We are talking about public health policy here. Public health decisions are not made on the basis of intuitive generalizations — or shouldn’t be. That’s the reason OSHA and UCLA and all the other monkeys keep going back to interpreting and re-interpreting THE NUMBERS. And it’s why you will lose.
Carpal Tunnel cases would be similar ONLY IF THE PERSON CONTRACTED CARPAL TUNNEL AT THE TIME THEY WERE EMPLOYED, USING A KEYBOARD AS A PART OF THEIR EMPLOYMENT.
Example 1) If my secretary retires and develops carpal tunnel syndrome 5 years later, how can we be sure my employment of her caused it?
Example 2) If a man appears in some number of gay porn movies, retires, and then develops HIV five years later, how can we be sure his work in porn caused it.
WE DO NOT KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT THESE 166 PEOPLE other than 1) they appeared in at least one porn scene, and 2) they died from AIDS or something AIDS-related. Correlation does not prove causation.
As for Mitch’s statement regarding the compensation of Directors (or lack thereof), it comes from AIM’s website (AIM’s Feb 4, 2011 PR). Here’s Sharon Mitchell’s full quote:
“We at AIM would like to take the opportunity to thank our Board of Directors for their commitment to the mission, serving without compensation, despite unfair adversities.”
Finally, your dumbest statement to date:
“166 dead gay porn stars does not destroy the argument for condoms.” Really? If 166 people use condoms and then die from a disease which you claim could be prevented by condom use (if only the producers cared enough), doesn’t that indicate that either 1) something else is going on in these performers’ lives, or 2) condoms don’t effectively prevent transmission — at least in terms of a porn scene, or 3) both? How much or how little producers may or may not care about the talent is not relevant to, and is completely independent of, this FACT.
By your “logic,” if condoms in porn worked, those 166 men whom you infer all got infected on set would be alive.
Your logic in comparison to gay porn includes an obfuscation, Mike. The only “system” gay porn ever had could be one described as having limited testing. That is not to say that condoms have been a universal standard. Bareback has always been a lucrative part of that industry and many of the 166 performers who died of AIDS performed in such films
@origen – I have two problems with what you just wrote:
1) Gay porn does not have “limited testing.” There is no testing paradigm. If some test and some don’t, that’s basically useless unless the talent pools for companies that require testing and for those that do not, are mutually exclusive. I’m not well versed enough in gay porn companies to know for sure, but I suspect that not to be the case. I wholeheartedly agree that its not a “system,” per se, more a culture or milieu. But whatever it is, it’s not universally monitored.
2) Just because some number of these performers may have — I say may have because we’d need proof, numbers — also performed bareback, that doesn’t mean they had it on set, or that the men they worked with had it on set. Without testing we don’t know — we cannot know — who had what when. I think it’s more an indication of the way these models chose to live their sex lives. There is PLENTY of bareback gay sex going on in real life.
The argument you are presenting is like a 9/11 conspiracy theory. Use Ockham’s razor for God’s sake!
Many bareback gay studios have mandatory testing for their contract stars. Falcon has such a system if I’m not mistaken. (You’d have to ask Tara cause I really don’t feel like exploring the gay side anymore…) Testing is standard for gay production companies in the UK and there was an HIV outbreak there in 2007.
Your whole argument is ridiculous because we have clear circumstantial evidence that many gay porn actors were performing in porn NEAR TO THE MOMENT where they passed due to illness (ie Frank Vickers, Al Parker, Jeremy Scott, Jon King, etc–lol like half the bareback stars of the 80s). The proximity between their time of death due to AIDS and their last performance is so close (just a couple years for the above examples) that its scientifically sound to reason that they were performing WHILE HIV positive. This is compounded by anecdotal, eyewitness testimony of the time–bugchasing was basically a given in the bareback subculture.
Watch your mouth, Origen! 9/11 conspiracy theory? No theories, just unanswered questions: You saw the plane wing marks on the twin towers, right? Where are the plane wing marks on the Pentagon? Wouldn’t the Pentagon have innumerable surveillance cameras everywhere? Then why have they released no photos proving a plane hit it? And if they lied about that what else have they lied about? No theories, Origen, just unanswered questions. We have not only the right to ask these questions but the obligation to demand answers! That is if you are a real patriot of this country and not just some mindless follower who buys whatever bullshit we are told without questioning or thinking.
*sigh* I meant no disrespect, Jeremy…
@origen – And 1980s gay porn practices of gay bareback stars are relevant to today exactly how? When the majority of gay porn is still condom-only? And 25 years of AIDS culture has changed the way we look at sex?
And contrary to what you write above, “many” gay porn production studios DO NOT have mandatory testing. A FEW do. It’s a fraction of gay production.
What is the rate of infection and death for those “mandatory testing” studios vs condom-only studios? Do you know? I’d like to know.
Thanks Origen. But anyone who wants to say STFU about 9/11 already who has never ONCE thought about or tried to seek answers to these questions (no pentagon plane wing markings on wall/no photos of plane, etc) needs to open their minds that have been STFC (Shut The Fuck Closed) for nearly 9 1/2 years! We still got the gov’t saying JFK was killed by a magic bullet nearly 50 years later yet somehow- and it’s one of the wonders of the world as far as I can see- we continue to mindlessly trust what the gov’t tell us! Truly mind-blowing!
That comes back to the same rumor thats been around for years that AIDs was created in a CIA lab to get rid of homosexuals at the command of President Reagan.
Supposedly he hated gays (and that his son was one) and asked the CIA scientists working for them to manufacture a disease to stamp them out. Only problem was some gay men are bisexual and before you knew it HIV was everywhere.
Why was there no AIDs/HIV 50 or 75 years (or longer) ago and all of a sudden we have a brand new disease that appeared all on its own? I certainly don’t know if its true but the rumor does have some merit to it.
You have a valid point, Karmafan, regarding AIDS coming out of nowhere. However, AIDS was only “created” in terms of it being a new umbrella label for a bunch of old, previously existing unrelated diseases. Also, HIV is not really “everywhere”. It remains mainly in the same original risk groups.
There was an enormous amount of political pressure upon the government by gay activists to solve what was originally called GRID (gay related immune deficiency) which later became known as AIDS (after gays were linked with IV heroin addicts who were dying). Its unbelievable “irresponsible” if it wasn’t intentional to not inquire into gays recreational party habits. The gay-subculture equated excessive drug use with gay liberation, along with all the numerous sex partners. Various nitrates aka “poppers” were blitzed all over gay magazines and equated with gay liberation and the “gay experience” as well. Magazines never spoke of the deadly effects of nitrate inhalers and meanwhile doctors had a complete lack of curiosity about their fast-track immune-suppressive lifestyle.
Robert Gallo, already known within the scientific community for ethically questionable and failed science, capitalized on the gay activists’ pressure on the gov’t to find a cure to their behaviorally caused recreationally-related illnesses by claiming it was caused by a virus. He would later fight charges of “scientific misconduct” but got off because of a Warren-commission like politically biased committee which said his conduct is not criminal because we can’t prove his quackery was pre-meditated and intentional.
Meanwhile, its been demonstrated that HIV tests are unreliable and non-specific, and excessive anal sex is one of the known causes of (false) positives on “HIV antibody” tests.
It has been proferred that AIDS is a conscious act of eugenics against gays as well as blacks- Africans in particular, but black Americans, as well, who also come up (false) positive much more than whites.
The insanely expensive drugs which are pushed on people have proven to cause AIDS-diseases (AZT is a DNA terminator- constant imbibement makes death inevitable even if you’re virus free and the healthiest person on Earth). The manufacturers of these drugs admit they don’t cure AIDS, yet AIDS orgs like AHF will scream that you will die if you don’t take them, that you surely won’t die if you do take them, and that they are the drugs you “need”.
AIDS was one of the major things that convinced me we live in a vegged-out population which will buy anything, no matter how scientfically absurd, as long as there is a constant bliztkrieg of “official statements” telling us it is true. It proves the powers that be have an extremely low level of regard not only for us as human beings, but our collective intelligence. After 9/11 happened and everyone was talking about Osama and the Taliban, in spite of the way the 3 towers came down and the obvious standdown which was most evident regarding the Pentagon, it only confirmed what I knew about this Orwellian society that I learned by researching the official story on AIDS.
There is a very good movie from HBO called “And The Band Played On” or something similar and told the story of that time. It had so many stars in it I lost count. With everyone from Mathew Modine, Richard Gere, David Dukes, Glean Headley, Anjelica Huston, Donal Logue, Steve Martin, Ian McKellan, Lily Tomlin, Laura Innes, Phil Collins, and Alan Alda as Gallo.
Here’s an amazon review of the movie which acknowledges Robert Gallo “as one of the few human ‘villians’ of the piece, more interested in writing himself into the history of the disease than in helping anyone.” Just remember, everyone, its his “science” which is the reason the AIDS empire exists:
This made-for-HBO movie definitely transcends the “disease of the week” genre that it’s part of. Based on the book by Randy Shilts, it chronicles the struggle of science vs. politics vs. morality in the early days of the AIDS crisis. Our point of view character is Dr. Don Francis (Matthew Modine), a passionate young scientist with the Centers for Disease Control. He and his colleagues, both at the CDC and France’s Pasteur Institute, seem to be the only ones who remember that there are real people dying of this mysterious disease. Dr. Robert Gallo (Alan Alda)is one of the few human “villians” of the piece, more interested in writing himself into the history of the disease than in helping anyone. Two other notable performances are those of Lily Tomlin as the tough, no-nonsense Dr. Selma Dritz) and Ian McKellan as Congressional aide Bill Krause, who as part of San Francisco’s gay community, is in the epicenter of the crisis.
Watching this movie, I got very angry. The blood banks, for example, were more worried about money than lives. One of the best scenes in the movie is where Dr. Francis stands up at a meeting and screams at reps from the blood industry, “How many dead hemophiliacs do you need?” before they do something about it. (That was a reenactment of a real outburst, not a fictional event.) An end title tells us that “By the time President Reagan made his first speech on AIDS, 25,000 people had died.” Between events like these and Gallo’s blatant scientific misconduct, it’s hard to avoid being incensed.
The acting is excellent, especially Modine and Alda, who even look a little like the men they’re playing. Modine brings an incredible amount of passion and frustration to Dr. Francis. I especially like McKellan’s character, an older gay man who is not a stereotype. Several familiar character actors show up as supporting players, and some very famous faces (Steve Martin, Richard Gere, Phil Collins, Swoosie Kurtz, and Anjelica Huston) make cameo appearances.
If you’re looking for something light and fluffy, this is not the movie for you. If you want something that will make you think, with some fine acting and a realistic script, this is for you. (Watch this, then go read Shilts’ book.)
Well Mike, I said many BAREBACK gay companies. And what about those 3 bareback performers who tested positive in 2007? It seems to me bareback presents more risk of STD transmission.
I’m not going to carry joe’s water on the pro-condom position. I oppose condoms but I want performers to be as safe as possible. The STD rate needs to go down. It cannot go to zero and personal responsibility is always a must, but there needs to be enough due diligence on behalf of AIM, agents, and producers to make sure production accommodates a performer’s health and safety.
@origen – Here’s something we can agree on — in gay porn, where there is no universal testing, bareback clearly presents a greater risk of transmission of ALL sorts of things. But, short of legislative action (OSHA CAN’T do this) — and ghat poses problems as well — there will be no mandatory HIV testing. Voluntary universal testing is the best way to go.
I also oppose condoms being MANDATED, and also would love to see the STD rate go down. It is a worthy and achievable goal. The way NOT to do it is to destroy AIM and create a vacuum which would benefit only the adult industry’s self-interested foes.
@joe — Al;ow me to flesh out my answer to you, and demonstrate where your analysis, such as it it, fails:
You wrote:
“Brooke Ashley won her workers comp case WITHOUT ever showing one single peice of evidence that anyone on any set she ever worked on was HIV positive. Not one single test result, not one single person testifying that they had any knowledge of any persone being HIV positive. And she still won the case. WHY?
“Because the courts used common sense. It was ruled that their was a high probablity that this infection could have happened in the workplace, given the very nature of the work itself. NO NEED TO PRESENT ANY EVIDENCE OF AN HIV+ performer.”
Here’s where you are either misinformed or purposely distorting the truth:
Yes, in some types of cases, like when the activity in question which was the alleged cause of the harm is of an ABNORMALLY DANGEROUS or HIGH-RISK NATURE, there is a kind of PRESUMPTIVE liability. That’s correct.
However, THIS PRESUMPTION MAY BE REBUTTED WTH EVIDENCE TO THE CONTRARY.
The Presumption was NOT REBUTTED in that case BECAUSE MARC WALLICE IN FACT HAD HIV.
The defense DIDN’T BOTHER TO TRY AND INTRODUCE EVIDENCE because IT HAD NO exculpatory evidence.
You, however, are implying (or stating, actually) that the analysis simply ends with a presumption of liability. That is untrue.
The question also remains whether a finding of presumptive liability would/should apply to EVERY single type of porn scene, although I can certainly see why a court would fell it was justified when considering the aftermath of a 50-man anal gang bang.
In fact, Wallice HAD HIV, thus the defense did not even bother, because of IMPOSSIBILITY, to attempt to rebut and counter the presumption.
Mike, what are your thoughts on some kind of collective bargaining arrangement between performers and producers?
I support it wholeheartedly. There are a few different models which could be followed.
Invading armies can be resisted, Victor Hugo once wrote, but nothing can stop an idea whose time has come.
That said, it will not be a panacea. There will always be outlying groups, and as long as there are, the nutcases and the power-hungry will continue to attack, and use porn as a dragon to tilt at — they need a dragon which can never be defeated because it’s employment insurance for them. There has never been and will never be a time when humans don’t want to look at sexual imagery, and with a market that big, there will always be people on the fringes. None of the prospective models — unions, guilds, etc — can really do anything to address that.
But, simply as a function of creating a better working experience for performers (and crew), the effort would be well worth it.
For the record, I support not only collective bargaining, but also industry-centric/industry supported help and outreach groups, and even a credit union is doable. The business is going to change drastically (obviously, it’s already begun), and the only entities which will survive are the ones prepared to run like real businesses. Many, many people in the adult business are here because they don’t really know how to run a “real” mainstream business. The few that do, like Flynt, are moguls or kings.
It’s been said that porn is the only multi-billion dollar industry with no professionals in it, and there’s some truth to that. The fly-by-the-seat-of-your-pants/1970s hippie-renegade bullshit has got to go.
Monica Foster has posted that she’s interested in such plans…hit her up sometime…
I’ve met Monica, but I’m a filmmaker, not a union organizer. It’s going to take someone/some entity 1) from within the adult business, 2) in cooperation with professionals in this field.
I have my views, but I don’t claim expertise in the world of unions or creating/operating such organizations. If a move to do this gains traction, however, sign me up to help in any way I can.
@Michael,
Being paid to have unprotected sex with a prostitute(porn performer) will always meet your threshhold of ABMORMALLY HIGH RISK, wheter it be a 50 man gang bang or a two person scene. Especially when it is prolonged, anal, oral and vaginal sex combined.
THere was NEVER any mention of Marc Wallice(Goldberg) at any time during any of the court proceedings. His name was NEVER mentioned at all.
Now I will use your tactic Michael,, WHere is the PROOF that Marc Wallice had HIV on the day in question, or are you just presuming that. THere was NEVER any HIV postive test on Marc Wallice until LONG after the day of this shoot. ANd Brooke was a known escort, and had unprotected sex with dozens if not hundreds of men. How could the courts possibly find in her favor when she offered NO PROOF of any kind that anybody she had sex with was HIV positive? How could the courts assume it happend on that set, and not one of doezens of others that she worked on?
@joe – You are asking me to comment on aspects of the case — specific facts — which are not in evidence, meaning I don’t have access to all these alleged facts. How come you have all these details of the proceedings? It’s a little odd. Why would a casual commentator go out and get he complete transcript of the proceedings and all depositions. That’s what would be required to make the claims you are making. Care to explain how you got a hold of the transcripts of depositions? I have not talked to Brooke Ashley about this.
Obviously you fail to understand how a legal presumption works. There didn’t have to be a mention of Marc Wallice in the case — if that is in fact true — because, as I said, WHY WOULD THE DEFENSE BRING HIM UP? It would only hurt them. And since the complainants benefitted from a legal presumption, why bother? It was the duty of the defense to rebut the presumption and they could not. You save stuff like that for when you need it, and Brooke’s lawyers didn’t need it.
Are you actually claiming that Marc Wallice did not have HIV? Similarly, are you claiming that back then, with the HIV tests they used and the amount of lag time until Wallice went in for a test, that an accurate sequencing could be done? Maybe Tim Tritch could help answer that one.
In any case, it is generally assumed that Wallice gave it to Brooke Ashley, since he was the vector, he was the person that linked the HIV infected parties. That’s my understanding. How come none of the other guys she worked with turned up HIV+?
Where’s the proof that she had unprotected sex with “dozens of not hundreds of men”? You cant just throw shut like that out there without backing it up.
My proof of her unprotected sex with dozens if not hundreds of men. Its on video. And she has admitted it.
And you are incorrect, the DEFENSE did try to refute the claim. In their appeal they bought up the fact that the plaintiff offered no ‘reasonable’ evidence that anybody she worked with had HIV.
Where do I get this info,,from the court documents. Knowing how to research public documents is easy.
And of course we all know wallice had HIV, but I was using YOUR argument that there was NO PROOF of it at the time.
You ask,”How come none of the other guys she worked with came up HIV+?” NOW youre making assumptions.
There are still people in the industry who claim that Lara Rox gave HIV to Darren James. There is just as much evidence to say the same thing about Wallice and Ashley. That doesnt make it true, but it makes for an intersting argument. Of course the CDC did do genetic sequencing of Rox, Arroyo, Dee and James and the CDC reported that “Male index patient is the souce of infection.”
Where do I get my information? Wouldnt you love to know!!!
Oy vey, Joe, it is always excruciating trying to unravel your arguments.
First of all, that is NOT how a legal presumption operates, and your example is ridiculous. One does not rebut a presumption on appeal. Presumptions must be rebutted at the trial or administrative hearing. Not on appeal. Appeals deal with redress of errors on the proceedings — bad/improper calls made by the court/board/trier of fact.
Similarly, one does not refute a claim on appeal. Facts and claims are heard prior to appeal.
More importantly, the fact (or your alleged fact claiming) that, on appeal, the defense raised the issue that the plaintiff had offered no ‘reasonable’ evidence that anybody Ann worked with had HIV, casts doubt on your premise that there ever was a presumption in the first place. If there was a presumption, then the plaintiff would never have had to provide “reasonable evidence.”
And my argument was never that there was no proof of Wallice’s HIV status at the time of the legal/administrative proceeding. That’s idiotic. My argument is the opposite of that. That’s why I do not believe you when you claim the parties NEVER AT ANY POINT, even in deposition testimony, brought up Wallice. It makes absolutely no sense.
And further, the “dozens if not hundreds of men” you mentioned was in the context of escorting not performing. You may conflate sexual activity with non-tested parties with sexual activity with tested parties, but I do not.
And as for where you got your information, if you indeed have all the info you claim or imply you have — including documents only the parties and their attorneys would have — the answer would be clear. The entire record is seldom public, and certainly attorney work-product is never publicly available. So, either you’re a liar or we can easily figure out the source. But there’s no need, is there, Joe, because other things you’ve written in these comments, and the way you’ve phrased them, make it ever quite clear to me.
They are quite reminiscent of a serious of emails I’ve received privately.
True, joe. The number of partners an adult performer has is abnormally high and strongly increases the risk of STD infection. The average number of sexual partners needs to go down and this goes in line with maintaining a production schedule that truly accommodates a STI testing regime.