I got copied on an internal FSC email, I am not sure how that happened but it amused me enough that I actually gave them honest and what I think to be good advice.
The gist of the email was asking how to best defeat Prop 60:
heres the thing….I do get what Weinstein is doing.
He wants to give himself the ability to sue for the money he spends on porn performers that get HIV, he cant write a law that gives him that standing without the standing being given to everyone else as well (equal protection)
Thats why it is written the way it is, even if 60 does pass (I am honestly ambivalent about it at this point) it has a LONG way to go before anyone will collect any money….the law itself will be challenged, and should it be found to be constitutional the first thing a judge will have to rule on is “standing”. Because of the financial impact on AHF at this point Weinstein would likely win but the average Joe would not.
The idea that lawyers will be advertising on TV to sue porn stars is ludicrous, every attorney I talked to in Cali indicated that they would only be inclined to consider a suit under this law if they got a 10K retainer and that is only if it doesn’t go to trial. How many “citizens” do you know that would even consider this?
So when you look at the big picture pass or fail prop 60 won’t do much in the long run. I think The FSC would be better off spending it’s limited resources on a post production method of removing the condom from the product…or even just using condoms, at least for the foreseeable future….Porners are spending a LOT of money fighting a battle that they cant possibly hope to win….Even if 60 goes down in defeat the next challenge by AHF is waiting to be sprung, compared to Porn Valley, they have unlimited resources. Porn Valley should stop playing the short game and start playing a long game IM not so HO
That said The single best thing we could do as an industry TODAY would be to get with the union section headed by Melissa Hill and Sean Michaels and Alana Evans and iron out an agreement by which producers pay for testing and an intent to cover expenses for workplace illnesses….and make that VERY public.
I even got a response, I won’t say who it is from but It is from someone you would all recognize, a large company owner.
“Mike you don’t know what you are talking about. You can for add a condom in post production. CGI that is prohibitively expensive. And people don’t pay for condom porn. It is entertainment just like action movies that kill 10 plus stunt people a year”
“Again you are economically ignorant. It is irrelevant who pays for the test. It is a cost of production. If producers pay (silly inefficient because a test is used by multiple producers in a two week period) then there is less for talent. Talent is compensated now by the competitive price paid for a scene”
to which my response was
I can tell you that I have been condom optional for a very long time and I can show you years of data that show that condoms made no difference. Your niche may vary, admitted but as for post production there are several potential ways to deal with condoms
1. make a condom that looks like a penis….this is actually easily done it would be a specialty item for porners but its an easy one these days.
2. make a condom that more easily facilitates chroma keying….this is probably fairly expensive but nowhere near as pricey as trying to fight off an adversary that has hundreds of millions of dollars they are willing to throw at this.
3. female condoms….this one is actually pretty easily hidden all the way around.
While I would agree that in the long run the cost of testing is always going to be borne by the performer, its simple economics, the point is the perception of the public as to whom is bearing the cost. Managing perception is absolutely the FSC’s weakest point. Perception influences more than anything how voters will vote, you of all people know that…being Libertarian.
Tell me again how I dont know what I am talking about?
Actually I welcome this discourse, someone there actually cared enough to respond and that is promising, albeit not very.