My Thoughts On The Performer Database


OK I am getting this a lot you want to know what I think of the new FSC performer database but the FSC, as usual, has released much of anything with substance.  They say no personal identifying information will be stored in the database, if that is the case then the ONLY way to insure you are looking at the right test is with biometrics (finger print scan, eye scan etc)  I somehow don’t see them doing that.

There is no indication of any data encryption, system failsafes, intrusion detection or security auditing (who did exactly what and when)

It is my understanding that to even be in this system you have to pay the FSC 600 dollars a year and that the testing price is higher than talent testing.

The question that you as a performer have to ask yourself is….Do I trust the FSC?

If the answer is no steer clear.

You have the power in this situation, if you reject it, it dies, plain and simple.

I am spending hours a day getting people removed from the last fuck up (which I might add is STILL UP!)  Thats right the original AIM database is still online and accessible.

Would I trust the FSC here…not in a million years…..Will I fix this shit a second time?  NO!

Next time you are going to have to count on the FSC to fix it, I can’t do this again.

I wouldn’t accept an AIM test, ever as a result guess how many of the girls who shot only  for me ended up on PWL…..ZERO


I am spending this time fixing the fuckups of AIM and the FSC, I won’t do it again.

53900cookie-checkMy Thoughts On The Performer Database

My Thoughts On The Performer Database

Share This

17 Responses

  1. You write, “the FSC, as usual, has released much of anything with substance.”

    I told you that more info is due today or tomorrow — but you just had to launch another tirade before that info is released. I wish I could say I’m surprised.

    Performers DO NOT have to pay $600 a year. That is an outright lie. A LIE.

    You write, “They say no personal identifying information will be stored in the database, if that is the case then the ONLY way to insure you are looking at the right test is with biometrics (finger print scan, eye scan etc).” That is ridiculous. Performers can have a papwr copy of their own test just like they do now with TTS, AND the database system that can be accessed by producers will inform producers of whether or not the performer is available for work. How difficult is that to understand?

    Can you answer these questions?

    1) Since, as you are aware, the FSC’s APHSS database will contain NO private pedigree information (such as DL or SS# or CC# or home address or DOB) and NO medical information, what exactly is the nature of the “fuck up” you fear/predict? Can you explain?

    2) What health database is in place for the performers you hire for YOUR scenes?

    3) Do you even demand tests? If so, for what are performers tested?

    4) How often are the performers you hire required to be tested?

    5) Are those tests paper tests, or do you have a database you can access to verify that the performers are available for work?

    6) What is the protocol when/if a performer you hire out in Georgia tests positive? Where do they go and who do they contact? Who tracks other performers and/or civilians they may have worked with, and who contacts them?

    7) If you truly care about the performers and the industry, then why are you taking an “it’s them or me” position vis-a-vis their health and security?

    8.) Have you proposed your own — superior — plan which you will administer, for the performers’ health and safety?

    9.) Finally — and here’s the tough one — how can someone who cares about performer health and safety, but who never even supported AIM, propose KILLING A NEW AND IMPROVED SYSTEM THAT TRACKS AND SUPPORTS PERFORMER WELLNESS?

    These are simple questions, Mike. If you have as much character as I give you credit, I’m sure you’ll answer them right away.

  2. I have some concerns myself, but I have to say the APHSS website said performers are charged $50 a year. However, $250 a month is charged to the producing companies for access to the database. For the larger companies such as Kink or Vivid (both of which probably receive the $100 monthly discount for FSC membership anyway), that is probably OK with them but I wonder how many mom and pops will participate at that price. I think the fee should be based on how large the company is and how many scenes they produce with the larger companies paying substantially more than a mom and pop. Also, if I were producing, I would want the actual results delivered by the talent member on top of the database verification (I agree that results should not be on the database itself) and the APHSS site seems to lead talent to believe that actually picking up the results is optional. I think the results being either picked up or mailed (either overnight or two-day priority mail) to talent should be a standard service done automatically, not something that needs to be requested. In fact, I think there will be a problem because most producers are going to go the same route I would and demand the actual test results rather than depend on a “valid date” from a database. Who is to say that the test was negative unless talent produces the actual results, either way the test would be valid for one month from what I understand as the site does not state that non-negative results preclude admission in the database. Also, a doctor’s visit is required by your own admission — is the talent limited to the one listed doctor in LA or could another doc (say for Kink talent who would likely be living in the San Francisco proper or in SF/Marin County, at least 200 miles away) write the prescription for delivery to the satellite clinic there? Also, can the prescription be written for multiple tests over a six month or a one year period or does talent have to schlep to the doc’s office monthly on top of the blood draw location? I hope APHSS works but if SF based talent has to go to an LA doctor monthly to use the service, that sort of forces them to use the competition as I highly doubt Peter Acworth, Donna Dolore and Co. are going to drive/fly to LA just for a testing prescription when Talent Testing can serve them in town through their satellite clinic.

  3. mharris127 – I trust that your questions will be answered in the news releases forthcoming over the next few days. I have forwarded your comments and questions to FSC, and I encourage anyone who wants clarification to contact them as well.

    And, of course, I still await answers from Mr. South.

  4. Database security and performer cost aside, the issue I see with this system is the fact that there’s a $150 monthly fee for producers ($250 for non-FSC members) to have access to verify performer tests. Are most producers going to register and pay the fee? If not, will they still accept a hard copy of the APHSS tests?

  5. @Toby – First of all, what legitimate producer who can afford to hire actual California pro talent can’t afford $150 or $250 a month? Especially in the name of performer health and safety? I mean, I spent $200 on dinner + tip + parking last night in LA.

    The testing system, like AIM’s old system, is voluntary (not government mandated) but meant to be universally observed. No one will place a gun to the head of a producer and force them to join. They can accept a paper test but they run the risk that someone may have falsified it. Is $150 or $250 a month worth that risk?

    There have always been “producers” who don’t care about tests, or whether performers are endangered on their sets because someone may have faked a test or have one that is out of date. Should there be less of these “producers” in the future, I don’t see that as any loss.

  6. @michael – Once again we’re up against the California centric attitude. This is all well and good for performers and producers that work exclusively in LA, but what about performers that also shoot in Vegas, Phoenix or wherever. And what about producers that do the bulk of their work elsewhere but come to LA occasionally. There needs to be some accommodation made for those situations.

    TBH, I think that producers should pay for performer testing prior to every shoot, but that’s never going to happen.

  7. @Toby – If producers pay for testing, then producers may forever cede the argument that they are not employers. That opens up many cans of worms — see the current Cal-OSHA mandatory condoms struggle (OSHA only has jurisdiction over employers and employees).

    Second, performers work for MANY producers within a month — why should one producer pay for a test that will be used to benefit several producers during the same testing period.

    If a performer from California who tests with APHSS wants to shoot with producers elsewhere, he/she can do it — but it puts the people with whom they shoot who are not tested within that system at potential risk. They are free to accept a paper test as they may have done previously. Again, what is $250 to a legitimate producer compared to having a disease mitigation program that benefits the performers — the very people off of whose personalities,likenesses and labor they profit?

    I have forwarded your comments about making some “accommodation” on to FSC — let’s see what they come up with in the coming days/weeks — okay? I agree wholeheartedly that a system that benefits the broadest range of parties would be optimal.

  8. @Dirty Bob – Because Sharon Mitchell failed to pull the database/site down before she folded up shop and sent AIM into bankruptcy protection.

    I refer you to contact the ONLY PERSON who at this point in time has anything to do with AIM’s affairs, or any power to act on its behalf: AIM’s bankruptcy trustee:

    The Law Office of David Hagen
    16830 Ventura Blvd., Suite 500
    Encino, CA 91436-1795
    (818) 990-4416
    [email protected]

  9. @Toby and other readers — Remember, AIM also charged producers monthly for access to its database.

    The purpose of is as a verification resource for tests, and also to uphold protocols in the event of an outbreak. Private doctors and clinics have no way to do an industry-wide stoppage if something happens.

    Also, APHSS has protocols for new performers and for treatment in the event of infection that need to be observed. APHSS facilities have been given policies for how to deal with performers’ issues with dignity and understanding — i.e., a non-judgmental environment with professionals who are familiar with the needs of the performers.

  10. Ok this will sound really stupid but does the FSC make any money from all of this?? i ask cuz i dont know..not trying to a smart ass

  11. I don’t think they will make any money in the first few years and they have probably put many thousands of dollars into APHSS. I don’t have a problem with them recouping their expenses. However, I do think that the producer’s charge should be by scene and not a flat fee. The flat fee system just encourages the smaller producers to not opt into the system as $3K a year could make or break them (I am talking about the people doing 3-10 scenes a month for Clips For Sale). The fee requirement just runs people like that out of the system altogether, so I think that needs to be rectified. For example, charge a dollar per scene (not movie) produced over the month. Large companies such as Kink or Hustler that produce many, many scenes pay their fair share without forcing the mom and pops out of the business. For example if a company produces ten scenes per day for twenty days a month, they would pay $200. Adjust the price per scene to make APHSS cover its costs, of course. I would include the cost of bi-weekly testing in the per-scene fee especially for the mid-size and larger companies (a tiered system may work better than my example but would be too complicated to explain here) but I understand the arguments the other way.

  12. mharris if this were the real world I might agree with your argument but this is porn I’d bet they don’t even have a thousand dollars in the development of this database.

    and realistically there is a LOT of money in testing talent I’m sure the markup on the test is between 50 and 100%

    AIM was making a killing…or someone there was. The PCR/DNA test is very expensive after the markup, AIM was reportedly making more than 100% per test. Whereas the more reliable tests had a much lower margin. At this point AIM is toast so I doubt anyone will ever really know.

    I dont think halfass is going to fly because the FSC has no credibility with the performers.

  13. Database development is not the only cost involved in a program like this.

    As for the flat fee for producers, and smaller producers opting out: this program has been designed to grow organically to accomodate as many inudustry members as possible, but for now, what is being launched is the ground work. Larger studios are in constant production. Smaller producers are unlikely to need the database as often, but they (FSC) won’t really know the numbers until they start using it.

    It’s also my understanding that AIM charged everyone the same rate.

    Also, regarding the talent and hard copies of tests, picking up results is optional, but it’s up to the performer to get a hard copy or e-version of their results to show. is verification that they didn’t fuck with their test, and upholds the protocols in case of an incident. Look at the FAQs on the website — it explains a lot there.

    Also — I forgot to mention this earlier — look at the testing facilities on the site – they are available NATIONWIDE including San Francisco.

  14. Yes, the testing site is available — my question was how to get the prescription if you are based outside of the LA area. If a person’s internist (doctor for adults) may write the prescription instead, that isn’t a problem but if only one doctor is writing the scripts for the program that could be a problem.

    BTW, I looked at the FAQ’s. They answered some of my questions but not all. Also, e-mail copies are a convenient service but I wonder how many old-line producers would accept them without the testing service’s seal (essentially using a notary imprinter) imprinted on them (maybe not a problem with some now that the test’s validity may be verified online but some of the older producers may still want the official seal). Personally if all positive talent is kept off of the database and I can verify the validity dates online as well as see a copy of the test, I would be happy without a seal personally.

  15. @Michael (and anyone else who wants to know) – Update on the info Michael posted regarding AIM’s affairs.

    The email given is [email protected], but that is not the correct David Hagen.

    I email him and he replied with this:

    “I am not the David Hagen that is the trustee of AIM Healthcare. It is David R Hagen in Woodland Hills. I have forwarded your email to him.

    David S Hagen”

  16. @mharris127 – If you visit the Testing Facilities tab at You will see a list of centers.

    Click on any of the name of any center listed and it will take you to a page that provides more detailed information for performers and producers.

    You call the number of the clinic you want, and they will recommend an approved draw station nearest you.

    If you’re in CA, FL or NV — Lab Test LA or Primex can serve you.

    AMTC has doctors in every state.

    It is my understanding, then, that you don’t even need to visit your own internist, because a doctor affiliated with any of these clinics can perform the service of prescribing a test. The rules of how this is done vary from state to state.

    Again this is my understanding from what I’ve read and heard. I’m neither a hardcore producer nor a performer, so I’m not privy to all the intricacies of this particular process. I urge you to contact FSC with any questions with regard to the system that I cannot answer definitively.

    And yet one more thing on the cost of APHSS for smaller producers vs. larger producers:

    The reason smaller producers (not to mention a-holes) like Donny were able to have access to the AIM database despite the fact that they did not want to pay the fee is because people routinely shared passwords. This was a very dangerous custom — as should now be abundantly obvious to everyone — and this fact was taken into consideration by the developers of the APHSS system.

Leave a Reply