Click Here For The Home Page

Contributing Authors

Lacey Blake

Lurking Reader

CNBC Says "Mike South - South is the Nikki Finke of the porn industry. His blog, which is never short on opinion, is a must-read among industry insiders. His style is unique, but he is also a leading agent of change within the industry. There are few fence-sitters when it comes to opinions about South, but no one ignores him."

Recent Comments

  • Maybe We Should Raise the Bar On Talent (21)
    • schlermy: You’re probably right about the Glyph. The problem with Blu-Ray is several fold, it’s just not as ubiquitous as DVD and never...
    • CPanzram: @schlermy It is something to keep an eye on, but the odds of the Avegant Glyph Mobile Theater becoming a porn-viewing forum are...
    • schlermy: People will pay for porn..when it’s high quality on a new medium. DVD’s are dead, Blu-Ray really never caught on. Of course,...
    • jilted: There is an old saying, “You get what you pay for.” Its true in any business, porn is no exception. The porn industry was NEVER...
    • schlermy: It’s a pretty simple explanation for the lack of talent: Follow the money. There’s far less money in porn than 10 years ago,...
  • Treasure island Media Trying To Be The Extreme Associates of Gay Porn (24)
    • CPanzram: @Mharris “I just re-read my comment, I think my outrage is at the high risk of transmitting HIV on a TIM set, not necessarily...
    • Ari Bass: Ohhh Mharris127 one of out favorite poster’s on Sean and mine blog@ TRPWL. I love the fact that you post on our blog and then over...
  • XRCO Photos You WONT See Anyplace Else -Nudity Involved- (5)
    • Ari Bass: Look at all those fucking stink skanky whores would you. I’ve had unprotected sex for cheap with just about all of them and never...
  • 2014 XRCO Exclusive Photos (7)
    • Ari Bass: Never seen so many fucking phony ass people all in one spot in a long time. Manuel and James need to shave those beards, they look like...
    • BT: Given how many of those people I recognize by name, I realized I spend way too much time watching porn. Gotta get a life.

A Rob Black Request

By: Lacey Blake

If you are incapable of reading my comments in the correct context then I would kindly ask you to pay better attention before calling me out. Especially on this statement I recently made:

“Also, if porn in GA is illegal then wouldn’t porn in FL be illegal as well? I thought it was all legal due to that whole “legal by default” loophole?” Lacey Blake

I realize many individuals would need to have a grasp on my writing style to understand how purely sarcastic this comment was, but let me assure you it was pure sarcasm. Our thoughts on this matter are actually very similar. I find the “is it actually legal or not?” discussions unbelievably annoying. In addition, this comment was in no way an attempt to defend Mike. Frankly, he doesn’t need anyone to defend him. He’s pretty capable of handling the issues himself and has been doing so for years.

I have now been in debate after debate, on this very site, regarding the legality of porn in other states. As we know, California and New Hampshire have specific laws on the books making the shooting of pornography explicitly LEGAL within both states. I’ve always just, rather lazily, assumed the common sense notion that shooting porn in all other states would be classified under prostitution laws making it illegal. In fact, this would also explain exactly why there are no OSHA regulations or any rules in place for the nation-wide adult industry.

But, that was just my common sense approach to the issue. I’m not an attorney with the experience to fully research these laws. I’m also not in the porn industry. I’m not a performer, producer or even a distributor within the adult community. Ultimately, I make absolutely no money from the industry.

But, I am a 30 year old female accountant who occasionally works in the mainstream stunt industry where my husband and father-in-law work as full-time stunt performers. The stunt industry has well over 30 separate OSHA manuals covering almost every single stunt you can imagine. The “entertainment” and “safety” aspects of the porn industry vs. stunt industry debates are what led me to researching the industry further. My first article on here was actually written about 2 weeks after I learned that this site even existed. It was quite simple. I ended up getting in a huge fight with jilted regarding employee vs. independent contractor issues. Mike contacted me to ask if I wanted to write something for his site. I quickly informed him that I’m about the farthest thing from a writer you could possibly find. He asked me to at least try, so I accepted. The rest is history. I’ve since learned that I enjoy writing immensely. I don’t think I ever realized how fun writing could be after being required to submit thousands of papers during college on a variety of extremely boring topics, but Mike has been quite supportive and I’ve really enjoyed it this far.

With that said, I have routinely been reminded by industry players that the shooting of pornography is not specifically ILLEGAL in other states thereby making it LEGAL BY DEFAULT. I still don’t quite understand the logistics of this theory, but I decided to bring the issue forward on here in case anyone had any opinions or definitive answers.

Instead of trying to explain it in my own words, I’m including just one example of the more relevant and rational debates I’ve participated in on here regarding the legality of shooting porn outside CA and/or NH and how various OSHA laws may apply:

“Since the porn industry isn’t “legally” recognized by any state other than CA or NH, then state OSHA isn’t going to regulate… Federal OSHA would regulate until that particular industry/business became “technically” legal. If found to be illegal and thrown in with prostitution laws then there are no rules because the act of prostitution is illegal and not covered by ANY OSHA.
The problem here is that they don’t consider shooting porn illegal.
They view it as legal on default. So, it’s “legal” but not “completely legal” enough to follow OSHA regulations…
Yeah, I know, makes absolutely no sense?? If they honestly thought it would pass the legality test then they would put it before the state to get a legal ruling… but, that’s probably not the best idea and they know it.”
Lacey Blake

“Alas dear Lacey, it’s not that simple.
Porn is protected free speech if it is not obscene. The question hinged entirely on what is considered obscene. You can have a lot of fun with this one because for the most part, the judgment system is a thing called “community standards”. I will leave you to go research that little legal turd for a while. Safe to say that what is legal and protected in San Francisco, example, might not be legal and protected in Polk Country Florida.
The biggest switch and the one that makes porn more or less defacto legal in all of the US is that the narrow “community standards” test has been sort of supplanted by a more realistic national standard. However, it is almost entirely subjective, and thus while straight porn may be “legal”, on a bad day a facial cumshot might actually be obscene. You can tag on top of that of course all sorts of issues related to zoning for adult businesses, or restrictions on filming permits in many place, and you end up with a patchwork quilt of overlapping laws, regulations, and trap doors. It’s why most companies are based in California, it’s the first place to make it legal and the one with the most legal precedents to work from if a problem comes up.
Federal OSHA doesn’t specifically by word require condoms. The condom requirement is taking the wording of the laws and standards and trying to apply them to porn. It’s why California is trying to pass specific legislation, because the OSHA rules aren’t specific enough that a legal fight might not go entirely their way. When in doubt, pass more regulation!
Nastydollars (now owned by Manwin) is a company shooting porn based out of South Florida, and their content is clearly filmed in that area, many of the outdoor setup shots are pretty obvious.”

“For the life of me, I do not understand the logic of porners who try to justify not using condoms with the concept that if it’s illegal to shoot porn, then OSHA has no jurisdiction and therefore it’s OK. The sweatshop allegation is correct. If someone operates an illegal sweatshop and someone is injured, the operator is going to be criminally charged. Could go to jail. So …….
OSHA is a civil agency. Violate OSHA guidelines and you’re probably going to be fined and OSHA will work with you to correct the problem.
Operating in an illegal way doesn’t get you around the requirements. What it means is that if you’re caught, you’re going to be charged criminally. You may get a fine and you may also go to jail.”

Currently, in California, we know that having no camera present during a paid sexual encounter equals prostitution. Yet, something as simple as a single cell phone camera present turns this same paid sexual encounter into pornography. We know for a fact that these rules legally apply in CA and NH. So, do these same rules still apply in all other states as well? If the shooting of pornography is legal in all 50 states due to the rights guaranteed under the first amendment then what exactly are the rules? Or, more importantly, are there any rules?

Which leaves the ultimate question and the original issue I brought up: if porn is currently illegal to shoot in Georgia then wouldn’t it be safe to conclude that porn in Florida would be illegal as well? And, we ALL know how much porn is currently shot and produced in Florida. That’s not even including the current issues surrounding porn production in Nevada which no one seems to yet have a definitive answer for either. We’re talking about an ENTIRE industry here. The last time I checked, the Wild West time period in American History was long gone.


TTS Announces Webinar for the Interpretation and Identification of Valid Test Reports

TTS Announces Webinar for the Interpretation and Identification of Valid Test Reports
April 2nd, 2014
Talent Testing Service, Inc. (TTS) will be conducting the first in a series of informative webinars. The first of its kind in the adult industry, these webinars further enhance the visibility between TTS operations and its stakeholders.
“As part of our ongoing commitment to transparency with our stakeholders, we have started a series of webinars with specific topics that will be of interest to the adult community as a whole.” said Sixto Pacheco, President & CEO of TTS. “These webinars will provide an insight on operational activities that affect producers, agents and talent alike.” Pacheco continued.
Webinar #1:
Interpreting TTS Reports and Learning the Telltale Signs of a Falsified Report
Date & Time: Monday, April 14th – 03:00PM PDT (12:00PM EST)
This first 30-minute webinar will concentrate on interpreting results reports and how to ensure reports have not been altered. Some of the items to be covered will include QR Codes, Embedded Talent Pictures, Generation Logs and Authentication Codes.
Anybody interested in participating in the webinar can register by April 11th 2014 at:

About Talent Testing Services, Inc. (TTS)
As the leader in setting testing standards for the industry, Talent Testing Service, Inc. (TTS) consistently offers talents safe, courteous, affordable and convenient testing through wholly owned subsidiaries or collaborating sites. Since 2007, TTS has provided the most advanced infectious molecular testing for the adult industry. TTS is a privately held company with headquarters in Miami, Florida and a subsidiary office in Los Angeles, CA. Miami, FL (Headquarters) (305) 792 2090 / Los Angeles (818) 885 0812 Twitter: @talenttesting Facebook:

Kink Threatens to Convert The Armory To Office Space and Move Production To Las Vegas

Las Vegas Mayor Carolyn Goodman has not responded to a request for her position on this move.

From SFGate

The BDSM porn purveyor that has been operating in the Armory Building since 2007 may soon be cracking its last whip in the Mission. It’s not leaving because of the rising cost of real estate; it’s because of the cost of producing porn.

Last week, the Planning Department released a preliminary review of a plan submitted by Peter Ackworth, CEO of and the Armory Building’s owner, that would convert the building’s production studios into office space. If approved the proposal would create more than 100,000 square feet of office space in the Civil War-era building on 14th and Mission.

In an email message to Mission Local, Ackworth explained that recent and upcoming legislative changes creating stricter health regulations in adult films have made the production of hardcore pornography prohibitively expensive in California. Ackworth says that he may move the production arm of to Nevada and rent out the Armory for office use.

“The fact is that new regulations threaten to essentially criminalize the production of hardcore pornography in California,” Ackworth said. “Measure B in L.A. county was just the start, and now we face AB 1576 and new draft CAL-OSHA regulations that are being proposed.”

Assembly Bill 1576, which was introduced in January, would amend the California Occupational Safety and Health Act with provisions specifically for adult films. If approved, studios would have to provide documentation that all performers use condoms during scenes involving penetrative intercourse and that all performers are tested for STIs every 14 days.

“These new regulations are not yet in place and we are disputing them,” Ackworth said in his email. “We hope to prevail on the basis that our protocols include strict, mandatory testing and/or mandatory condoms for all our shoots, and based on the fact that there has not been an on-set transmission of HIV in the U.S. since 2004 on any set where testing was required — not just at but anywhere in the industry.”

Earlier this year, two performers named Cameron Bay and Rod Daily contracted HIV while working for and both performed in scenes without condoms. Ackworth has stated previously that he was confident these performers were infected through encounters in their personal lives and not on set. Furthermore, representatives have also stated that both performers were offered condoms during shoots but declined to use them.

However, in an interview with the Huffington Post, Bay has described a more complex situation in which she felt subtle pressure not to use condoms and was severely injured while on set. Her contraction of HIV led to a brief moratorium on porn shoots in LA.

In response to previous OSHA citations filed against in January, Ackworth has argued that given the intensity of scenes shot by Kink, condoms can often be a hindrance to comfort and many performers prefer not to use them.

“There are various reasons I believe condoms should be optional for performers. The primary reason is that this is the opinion of the majority of performers,” wrote Ackworth in a blog post published in January. “Many cite issues such as discomfort, and that in the context of hardcore sex lasting several hours, condoms can lead to abrasions and tears that in some instances can make sex less safe.”

In addition to the production studios converted to office space, Ackworth’s proposal submitted to the Planning Department details converting the 39,000 square-foot drill court, which is currently used as a community event space, into an entertainment venue. In his email, Ackworth explained that this is an idea he’s had for a long time and is “still dedicated to fulfilling that vision.”


Assembly member Hall Measure to Require Condoms in Adult Films to be Heard in Assembly Labor & Employment Committee

Assemblymember Isadore Hall, III
64th Assembly District
State Capitol, Room 3123 ˜ Sacramento, CA 95814
2200 W. Artesia Boulevard, Suite 210 ˜ Compton, CA 90220 ~@isadorehall

CONTACT: Terry Schanz

April 1, 2014 916-319-2064


Assembly member Hall Measure to Require Condoms in Adult Films to be Heard in Assembly Labor & Employment Committee

SACRAMENTO, CA – Revised legislation by Assemblymember Isadore Hall, III (D – Los Angeles) to require employer paid STD testing and mandatory use of condoms in adult films will be heard by the Assembly Labor & Employment Committee on Wednesday, April 2, 2014.

AB 1576 (Hall) follows his 2013 efforts to protect adult film actors in the workplace. In the summer and fall of 2013, up to five adult film actors tested positive for HIV and the adult film industry imposed an unprecedented three nationwide filming moratoriums. These moratoriums were unenforced and are largely ignored by the industry. Since that time, the industry has resumed production without any mandatory policies in place to protect its workers.

Several former adult film actors will testify in support of the legislation including Cameron Bay and Rod Daily, who each contracted HIV while working as an adult film actor in 2013.

Who: Assemblymember Isadore Hall, III, Former adult film actors Cameron Bay, Rod Daily, Jessie Rogers, Hayden Winters, Darren James

Public health advocates

What: AB 1576 (Hall) hearing in Assembly Labor & Employment Committee

When: Wednesday, April 2, 2014 1:30 PM

Where: State Capitol, Room 447

Sacramento, CA 95814

Isadore Hall, III, represents California’s 64th Assembly District that includes the communities of Carson, Compton, Gardena, Harbor Gateway, Lynwood, North Long Beach, Rancho Dominguez, South Los Angeles, Torrance, Watts/Willowbrook and Wilmington in Los Angeles County.

Is Anyone Even using PASS?

I remember a while back the fsc had a meeting about PASS and a lot of people mentioned they didn’t even use it

Poking around on shows that they have an Alexa Rank of roughly 6,500,000

Now as a reference my current Alex is 30,045

We have talked about Alexa before its certainly doable to game Alexa to make your rank better than it should be but its not really doable to make your rank worse than it should be.

Based on that Alexa rank FSCPASS cant be getting more than just a few views a day no I know that shooting has slowed down to next to nothing but it really should be getting a bit more traffic than it is. The indication is tha pretty much nobody is using it.

In other associated news, thanks to my new advertisers actually made money for the month of March…it wasn’t much but at least is idnt the loss leader it has been in the past

For the record heres how the other blogs stack up:

Site Traffic?Alexa Rank (the lower the rank the more traffic) ie:a rank of 30,000 is massively more traffic than a rank of 40,000)

Site Traffic/Alexa Rank (the lower the rank the more traffic) ie:a rank of 30,000 is massively more traffic than a rank of 40,000)

Senior Tag – You Can’t Be Tagged If You Are Naked

I came across this in my emailTownship police in Ohio send out friendly info notes…roof scammers, COPS enrollment, lock your cars cuz three got hit on such & such a street for devices & loose change…email header “senior tag” huh..okay so weathers getting nice what new program do we have to keep the  seniors  active & involved…

“We are hearing that Senior Tag is beginning soon and with seniors from multiple districts in the area we expect to see this in the township. Senior Tag is an activity unapproved and strongly discouraged by schools and the police department yet we all know kids sometimes don’t follow the rules. If you are not familiar with this it involves teams of kids trying to “tag” other teams by squirting them with squirt guns. One of the “rules” with some groups is you can’t be tagged out if you are naked. Kids often hide to try to surprise their targets.

This leads to many potential problems for law enforcement. In the past police have received calls on suspicious people which can lead to dangerous encounters, particularly at night, when we confront someone who may be hiding with an object that may look like a real gun. Also, public nudity is a violation of law and kids could face criminal charges if caught.

This may sound like a harmless activity but it does cause many to be concerned when they see kids running through their yards or possibly hiding around their house while involved in this. If you see this occurring and are concerned call our dispatch center and we will respond.

If you are a parent of a senior please do what you can to discourage them from participating in this activity. If they choose to do it anyway they need to know they may face consequences from the school and police if caught.

Stephen P. Gammill
Chief of Police
Genoa Township Police Department”

What Chief Gammil prolly needs to make a bit more clear is that the seniors he is referencing arent old folks…they are high school seniors….Still pretty funny though.

About That Medical Advisory Board And No This Isnt An April Fools Post

PASS Medical Advisory Board Sean Darcy

We all know about Dr David Kulbersh now, but What about some of the other members of that Medical Advisory Board….well if you are expecting the best and the brightest….think again.

Meet Dr Sean Darcy.

Dr Darcy is a Plastic Surgeon…Certainly nothing wrong with that, not sure what it has to do with being on a porn medical advisory board…maybe they also advise pornchicks about boob jobs I dunno.

What I do know is that if you go here:

You learn that Dr Darcy  had been dismissed from the Plastic Surgery Residence Program at the University of California, Irvine School of Medicine.
“The reasons for his dismissal included the following:

(a) deficiency in numerous clinical areas including knowledge of anatomy and technical skills,

(b) inconsistent clinical performance resulting in ‘alarming’ evaluations;

(c) ‘lackluster’ and ‘declining’ performance throughout the residency in general;

(d) ‘grossly unacceptable’ test scores in the bottom 9th percentile and bottom 21st percentile nationwide;

(f) falling ‘significantly short in areas of preparation, attention to detail, and follow-up’;

(g) documented incidents where his conduct ‘bordered on dangerous with respect to patient safety’; and

(h) an incident in which defendant Darcy threatened one of his instructors with a scalpel during a remedial suturing skills exercise.”

Yup The Free Speech Coalition sure knows how to pick em….Just like picking Uncle Peg to do a smear campaign on me and others.  If you take a look at that joke of a site you see one advertiser….Evil Angel….Know who pays for that ad?  Christian Mann as in Board of Directors of the Free Speech Coalition Christian Mann.  When your only advertiser tells you to run a smear campaign…you do it.

Note to Rob Black…Just damn dude  at least they are getting paid to spread that bullshit…or maybe you are just sucking up hoping Christian will throw you some scraps too?  I wouldn’t hold my breath if I were you…


Sean Darcy, David Kulbersh, ya this medical advisory board is shaping up very interesting….and you guys thought I’d abandon that story…You don’t know me very well.



Lets Be Honest here

There’s been a lot of hoopla recently where a couple of people, on behalf of The FSC have been trying hard to discredit me….For the most part I dont dignify crap like that with any response…I use testing like everyone else and I use same day testing as an additional measure. one of my crew members really does work for OSHA and has all the certifications, and shooting porn here in GA is NOT illegal. Now all that said Lets talk about the elephant in the room…the stuff everyone knows but nobody really acknowledges.

The testing system that porn uses is only barely better than no testing at all. there I said it.

Now allow me to explain using some people who have been recently very vocal about it.

Lets start with “Uncle Peg”, Michael Whiteacre….You can figure out how he got that nick, if you can’t ask the porn girls he hires as prostitutes, like Kiki D’Aire. I got nothing against prostitutes…God Bless em..its yours..if you wanna sell it go right ahead.

Uncle Pegs on again off again girlfriend/wife is Christina Parriera aka Ela Stone, Christina Page, Gabriella Stone and others. Christina has been accused By Whiteacre himself of shooting without a test, its well documented here

But does he have room to talk?

Heres Uncle Pegs PASS entry


Ok so you think maybe I got the name wrong? nope if you just put in ari into pass you get a list of every name with ari in it to choose from and Uncle peg aint in there, but notice how many names are…see the scroll bar on the right of that image…if your name has ari anywhere in it anyone with access to pass can look at your real name and your test results, that should be alarming to you in and of itself, you can bet Donny Long has it.


ya you read that right, he has never tested…..yet he is having sex with a girl who shoots porn with people like Phil Varone
Was she tested..maybe maybe not but she isnt listed in PASS either


Im not saying Ela Stone did or did not have a test, just that she isn’t in PASS

Now lets think about all of this for a sec.

That girl or guy you are about to do a condomless scene with he or she may be in PASS but when she goes home, who is her boyfriend? Is he in PASS? this guy that you are about to do a condomless scene with….yup he is in pass but when he goes home who is he having condomless sex with? Is that person in PASS? are they even tested? In the case of Katie Summers she is going home to Rob Black…who isnt tested…

Now lets talk about Ernest Greene and Nina Hartley we know that Nina has actually stated that condoms cause MORE STDs than without. lets remember that Nina and Ernest Greene are active swingers, they dont hide that at all…who are they “swinging” with? is Nina “increasing her chances of getting an std” by using a condom in these encounters? Are their swinging partners in PASS?

Lets look at Peter Ackworth, we all know he pops into Kink scenes from time to time, lets look at his testing history in PASS


Well he has one test…or does he …look at the clinic…it says admin…that means it was entered by hand by a PASS administrator

OK one more here This is Diane Duke, notice that SOME of hers are from Cutting edge…thats how it shows up when you test at a lab vs having a pass admin input it.


A few more that arent in PASS…Brooke Tyler, Axel Braun hasnt ever tested, Riley Steeles last test was at the end of February, has shot in the last 3 weeks? if so she shot with an expired test.

How many guys right now are shooting in Thailand or Brazil? prolly a half dozen or so….when they come back they are supposed to not be working for two months but we all know that isnt enforced, not even by LATATA, who put the rule in place.

Now Lets talk about that elephant in the room. Who among you has NOT ever had sex with an untested person then gone to work?

Truth….probably all of ya have done that. There aint no shame in that, dont feel bad, we all take risks…I ride a motorcycle…thats a HUGE risk….I SCUBA dive…another risky behavior, I go sometimes 100 or more miles out into the ocean…at night even…ya thats risky too.

The point I am making is that finger wagging and all that…you arent fooling anyone, not even yourselves. the only people in this biz who are shooting in a safe manner are Immoral productions and others that are condom only.

I’m not trying to take away anyones ability to decide they dont want to use a condom…I have always said you should have that choice, what I am doing is pointing out why this whole testing thing really is not much of a solution. but you already knew that didn’t you?

Assembly Committee On Labor and Employment Report


This came out today  it is a MUST read for people in this biz.


AB 1576
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 2, 2014
Roger Hernández, Chair
AB 1576 (Hall) – As Amended: March 26, 2014

SUBJECT: Occupational safety and health: adult films.
SUMMARY: Enacts specific requirements related to injury and illness prevention programs in the adult film industry, as specified. Specifically, this bill:
1) Defines “adult film” to mean any commercial film, video, multimedia, or other recorded representation during the production of which performers actually engage in sexual intercourse, as specified.
2) Requires an adult film employer’s injury prevention program to include a log of information for all scenes produced or purchased, including, but not limited to, documentation that:
a) Each time an employee performing in an adult film engaged in specified acts, personal protective equipment was used to protect the employee from exposure to bloodborne pathogens. This paragraph shall not be construed to require that the personal protective equipment be visible to the consumer in the finished film.
b) Each employee performing in an adult film was tested for sexually transmitted infections according to the recommendations of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the State Department of Public Health current at the time the testing takes place, not more than 14 days prior to filming any scene in which the employee engaged in specified acts and that the employer paid for the test.
3) Makes conforming changes to existing law.

1) Requires every employer to establish, implement, and maintain an effective injury prevention program.
2) Requires the program to be written, except as specified, and to include certain elements, such as the employer’s system for identifying and evaluating workplace hazards and the employer’s system for communicating with employees on occupational health and safety matters.
3) Requires each employer having an employee with occupational exposure, defined as reasonably anticipated specified contact with blood or other potentially infectious materials that may result from the performance of an employee’s duties, to establish, implement, and maintain an effective exposure control plan designed to eliminate or minimize employee exposure.
AB 1576
Page 2
4) Requires, under specified circumstances, the employer to provide, at no cost to the employee, appropriate personal protective equipment that does not permit blood or other potentially infectious materials to pass through to or to reach the employee, as specified.

COMMENTS: This bill addresses an issue that has garnered significant attention in recent years among public health officials, occupational safety and health officials, and interested stakeholders – how best to protect workers and performers in the adult film industry from exposure to bloodborne pathogens and other potentially infectious materials.
This Committee conducted an informational hearing on this topic in June 2004.

An analysis prepared by the Assembly Committee on Arts, Entertainment, Sports, Tourism and Internet Media on a related prior bill provided the following summary of the nature of the concern:

“According to information submitted by the bill’s supporters, “The US adult film industry (AFI) produces 4,000 to 11,000 films and earns an estimated $9 to $13 billion in gross revenues annually. California is the largest center for adult film production worldwide, although adult film production occurs throughout the United States. An estimated 200 production companies in Los Angeles employ up to 1,500 workers.

The supporters and opponents of this measure provided the committee with voluminous and often contradictory statistics about the incidence of STDs in the AFI, and the threat that exists for performers in being exposed to these pathogens. There is consensus however, that a number of highly publicized events surrounding outbreaks of the HIV virus within the community of adult performers raised the public profile of this intra-industry issue, and have drawn the attention of various regulatory bodies. A brief recitation of these events includes a 1980′s outbreak which led to a number of deaths and led to the current system of testing within the industry. Another outbreak in 2004 saw three actors test positive for HIV, and resulted in a voluntary month long shut down of the industry. In both 2009, and 2010, one person was discovered to be infected by the industry testing process, however according to a Los Angeles Times story, LA County Public Health officials believe unreported incidents may be as high as 16 in 2009.

Outbreaks such as those detailed above have drawn concern from many quarters, including the American Public Health Association, who wrote the following in their position paper entitled: Prevention and Control of Sexually Transmitted Infections and HIV Among Performers in the Adult Film Industry.

‘The industry’s method for responding to outbreaks of STDs and HIV among performers in the heterosexual segment of the industry is voluntary STD/HIV testing. Although testing can contain the spread of disease, it does not prevent its spread. Another limitation in the industry’s use of STD/HIV testing is the time period in which tests are conducted. The current industry practice is to test performers every 30 days; however, a performer could be exposed to an STD infection immediately after testing, have no symptoms, be highly infectious, and unknowingly transmit the infection to others. The

AB 1576
Page 3
30-day testing requirement is not consistent with incubation periods for most STDs and may therefore miss detection of disease.
‘Despite repeated recommendations from local public health officials, Cal/OSHA, and a Legislative hearing on how to make the AFI safer, industry practices remain unchanged. … Flagrant violation of other Cal/OSHA worker protections remains. Performers must still pay all STD screening tests – a violation of Cal/OSHA standards, which requires the employer to pay for medical monitoring. Further, to work, performers must take an STD/HIV test and furnish test results to their employer (production company) who posts and shares these results with other production companies in a database to which production companies and talent agencies subscribe. Performers with a negative test result can work, and those who are positive cannot work until they receive a negative test. This practice violates a worker’s right to medical confidentiality and is not consistent with the Cal/OSHA Blood-borne Pathogen Standard, which requires employers to maintain a confidential medical record for each employee.’ American Public Health Association Policy Statement 20102, 11/9/2010.”

The industry has implemented voluntary compliance with existing requirement for employers to have an exposure control plan to minimize the risk of employee exposure to blood-borne pathogens. Specifically, the Adult Protection Health and Safety Services (APHSS) has adopted an industry-specific Blood-borne Pathogens Exposure Control Plan.

APHSS testing protocols require each performer to submit to regular testing for STDs, including HIV. According to information supplied last year by APHSS, performers must be tested at a minimum of every 28 days1, and must take a blood test for HIV (by “PCR RNA” Aptima) and Syphilis (TREP-SURETM) cascading to RPR, and a urine test for Gonorrhea (by “ultra-sensitive DNA amplification”) and Chlamydia (by “ultra-sensitive DNA amplification”). Following the results of these tests, the performers are listed as “Available” or “Unavailable” to work on an APHSS database. Additional testing is recommended for performers new to the industry, and includes specific recommendations for female performers.

The Existing State Law Bloodborne Pathogen Standard
The regulations covering occupational health and safety require employers to develop and implement an Illness and Injury Prevention Program (IIPP, Title 8 of the California Code of Regulations § 3203). Where the work environment includes risk of disease transmission, the Division of Occupational Safety and Health (DOSH) has required employers to address control methods in their IIP. Many industries develop industry-wide IIPPs that individual businesses can follow in good faith and be deemed in compliance with the regulation.

DOSH also regulates workplace exposure to blood and other potentially infectious materials controlled by employers through an existing bloodborne pathogen standard (Title 8 of the California Code of Regulations § 5193).
1 However, there are indications that the industry’s current protocol is for testing every 14 days.

AB 1576
Page 4
Among other requirements, the existing standard provides the following with respect to personal protective equipment:
“Where occupational exposure remains after institution of engineering and work practice controls, the employer shall provide, at no cost to the employee, appropriate personal protective equipment such as, but not limited to, gloves, gowns, laboratory coats, face shields or masks and eye protection, and mouthpieces, resuscitation bags, pocket masks, or other ventilation devices.”
Some have argued that this existing standard, as applied to the adult film industry, would therefore already require the provision of condoms or similar barrier protections.

Current Petition Before the OSHA Standards Board
On December 17, 2009, the AIDS Healthcare Foundation (AHF) submitted a petition to the OSHA Standards Board seeking an amendment to the bloodborne pathogen standard specific to the adult film industry. In its petition, AHF proposed that the standard be amended to add a new subsection that would clarify required protections for workers in the adult film industry who are exposed to bloodborne pathogens and sexually transmitted diseases. AHF asserted that, although the existing standard provides protection for employees in the adult film industry, the amendments and enhanced enforcement are called for because there is an epidemic of sexually transmitted disease in the industry and the industry refuses to protect its workers from exposure to potentially infectious materials by requiring the use of condoms and implementing other control measures.

It has been reported that since the petition was filed in 2009, the OSHA Standards Board has held a number of advisory meetings, resulting in the circulation of draft language in June 2011. On October 24, 2013, the OSHA Standards Board released a revised draft for circulation. An email announcement accompanying the revised draft stated, “The Division has edited the previous draft, which was provided in June 2011. This draft has been sent to the Board staff for their review. It is not a rulemaking proposal at this time.” (Emphasis provided).

The draft language would establish a new standard Section 5193.1 specific to sexually transmitted infections, and would cover “all workplaces in which employees have occupational exposure to bloodborne pathogens and/or sexually transmitted pathogens due to one or more employees engaging in sexual activity with another individual.” Among other things, the draft language would require an employer to provide all safeguards required by the proposed section, “including barriers, personal protective equipment, training, and medical services, at no cost to the employee, at a reasonable time and place for the employee, and during the employee’s working hours.”

AB 1576
Page 5
Prior Enforcement Actions
Since 2006, DOSH has issued several workplace safety citations and fines to numerous adult film producers and distributers, including: Next Phase Distribution, Inc. (2006); Evasive Angles and TTB Productions (2006); La Touraine, Inc. (Jan. 15 2009); Hot Desert Knights, Inc. (Mar. 24, 2009); Discount Video (Feb. 18, 2009); Hot House Entertainment (June 27, 2008); HDK Distribution (Oct. 3, 2008); Anthony Gladdney d/b/a MVP Entertainment Co. (Mar. 26, 2010); and Media Products, Inc. (June 9, 2010).
In August 2009, the Aids Health Care Foundation (AHF) filed workplace safety complaints under DOSH against 16 California-based adult film companies, including complaints against Larry Flynt’s Hustler Video. AHF’s complaints asserted that the films demonstrate unsafe and potentially life-threatening behavior in a California workplace, as the sexual acts were filmed without performers using condoms and depicted the unprotected exchange of bodily fluids.

On March 21, 2011, DOSH issued three citations to Larry Flynt’s Hustler Video for workplace safety violations, including the following:
? Violation of Title 8 CCR § 3203. Injury and Illness Prevention Program. Failure to establish, implement, or maintain a written Injury and Illness Prevention Program (IIPP) which met OSHA standards for performers who were exposed to hazards in the course of producing adult videos.

? Violation of Title 8 CCR § 5193(c)(1)(A). Bloodborne Pathogens Program, Exposure
Control Plan. Failed to establish, implement or maintain all the required elements of a written Exposure Control Plan for performers who had reasonably anticipated contact with “other potentially infectious materials” (OPIM), in the course of producing adult films.

? Violation of Title 8 CCR §5193(d)(4)(A). Bloodborne Pathogens Program, Personal Protective Equipment. Failure to ensure the use of appropriate personal protective equipment, such as condoms, to performers who had reasonably anticipated contact with “other potentially infectious materials” (OPIM), in the course of producing adult films.

On April 6, 2011, Larry Flint’s Hustler Video filed an appeal of the citations. The appeal was reportedly settled in a closed session hearing on February 6, 2012.

DOSH Activity and Employee/Independent Contractor Issues
One of the difficulties faced by DOSH in enforcing the existing standard relates to whether the adult film performers are employees or independent contractors. DOSH generally has jurisdiction over occupational health and safety issues only as they relate to employees. Some of the prior citations issued by DOSH were challenged by adult film companies on the grounds that the performers were independent contractors rather than employees, and that therefore DOSH had no jurisdiction.

On March 25, 2010, DOSH issued a series of citations against Treasure Island Media, Inc. (TIM), an adult film production and distribution company. Among other things, the citation alleged that TIM failed to develop an injury or illness prevention program and failed to establish

AB 1576
Page 6
an exposure control plan under the bloodborne pathogen standard. TIM appealed the citations and argued, among other things, that (1) there was no employment relationship because the performers were independent contractors rather than employees, and (2) that the bloodborne pathogen standard did not apply to the adult film industry.

On January 6, 2014, an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) issued a decision in the case. After examining the evidence and the legal tests applicable for determining employee/independent contractor status, the ALJ concluded that the production crew and participants hired by TIM were employees and not independent contractors: “Examining the facts in this case, a preponderance of the evidence established that TIM controlled the work of the participants2.”

TIM also challenged whether the bloodborne pathogen standard applied to the adult film industry, arguing that it was enacted in reaction to the HIV/AIDS crisis and its focus was healthcare workers. However, the ALJ concluded that the standard applies to all workplaces (except those in the construction industry which are specifically excluded) where employees are exposed to blood or other potentially infectious materials.

TIM has appealed the ALJ’s decision to the full OSHA Appeals Board, so the final outcome of the appeal is still pending.
In addition, while the ALJ’s decision in the case (especially with respect to employee and independent contractor status) is significant, it should not be overstated. Determinations of employee/independent contractor status are very fact-specific analyses and vary from situation to situation. Therefore, whatever the final outcome of the TIM case, other adult film producers and distributors are likely to argue that the facts of their situation are distinct and different from the TIM case, and will likely continue to argue that their participants or performers are independent contractors rather than employees.

County of Los Angeles Measure B
On November, 12, 2012, Los Angeles County citizens approved the County of Los Angeles Safer Sex in the Adult Film Industry Act (“Measure B”) initiative by a 57-43% margin. Measure B requires the use of condoms for specified acts during the production of adult films. It is reported that nearly 90 percent of all legally distributed adult films made in the United States are filmed in Los Angeles County.

General Requirements
Measure B is enforced by requiring individual adult film producers or adult film production companies to obtain public health permits issued by the Los Angeles County Department of Public Health (“Department”). In absence of such permit, individual producers and film production companies cannot film adult films. Before an individual or production company can retain such permit, the individual must complete a blood pathogen training course approved by the Department. In the case of a company, all principals and management level employees, including film directors, must complete the course. An application fee for the permit must also be paid.

2 In the Matter of the Appeal of Treasure Island Media, Inc., Dockets 11-R6D1-1093 through 1095 (January 6, 2014).

AB 1576
Page 7
After completion of the course, the individual or production company is issued a health permit that is valid for two years. Measure B requires the public health permit to be displayed at all filming locations and clearly visible to adult film performers. The permit also requires that a legible sign be displayed, in no less than 36 font, that states “the use of condoms is required for [specified acts] during the production of adult films . . . any public health concerns regarding any activities occurring during the production of adult films should be directed to the Los Angeles County Department of Public Health.”
Permit—Suspension, Revocation and Fines

The public health permits issued to adult film producers may be revoked or suspended by the Department for any violation of Measure B or any violation of law that creates a risk of exposing performers to sexually transmitted infections. Measure B explicitly states that the failure of an adult film producer to require performers to use condoms during specified acts is a violation its provisions.

If the Department determines that a violation has occurred, a written notice to comply is issued to the permit holder. The permit holder has fifteen days to request an administrative review; the failure to do so is a waiver of the right to an administrative review. Within five days of the administrative review or waiver, the Department must issue a written a notice of decision specifying the penalties imposed on the permit holder and, if the permit is to be suspended or revoked, terms upon which the permit may be reinstated or reissued, if any (emphasis added). After the administrative review, the Department may modify or continue their disciplinary action. A permit may also be reissued or reinstated if the Department determines that the conditions leading to the permit suspension or revocation is corrected.

The Department also has the ability to immediately suspend the permit, impose any fines permitted by the measure, or initiate a criminal complaint if any immediate danger to the public health or safety is found or is reasonably suspected. The Department must issue to the permit holder a written notice to comply setting forth the acts or omission with which the permit holder is charged. The permit holder may correct the deficiencies noted and request a re-inspection when the producer is actually filming. The Department has discretion to reinstate or modify its earlier action after re-inspection.

Compliance, Enforcement, and Operations
Measure B also imposes civil fines on individuals who violate the act and makes it misdemeanor for willfully non-compliance of its provisions. In regards to civil penalties, Measure B gives the Department discretion to impose fines up to five-hundred dollars per violation on individuals who violates its provisions. For a criminal offence to be found, an individual or entity is guilty of a misdemeanor if he or she violates any of Measure B’s provisions, produces or films adult films for commercial purposes without a valid permit, or willfully refuses or neglects to conform to a county health officer’s lawful order or directive attempting to enforce Measure B. An offence is either punishable by a fine up to $1,000, imprisonment not exceeding six months, or a combination of the two.

AB 1576
Page 8
A civil action to enjoin a person or entity from filming in violation of Measure B may also be brought by the county’s counsel, the district attorney, or any person directly related to the failure of the person or entity from conforming to Measure B’s provisions.

Finally, Measure B requires producers of adult films to provide a written exposure control plan, approved by the Department, describing how requirements of Measure B will be enforced.

Related Ordinances in Other Jurisdictions
During and following the adoption of Measure B, and after concerns were expressed that adult film producers were moving production out of Los Angeles County to avoid the reach of the measure, several neighboring jurisdictions moved to enact similar ordinances. In April 2012, the Simi Valley City Council approved an ordinance requiring the use of condoms in adult film production. In May 2013, the Ventura County Board of Supervisors unanimously passed a similar ordinance. Prior to this, the City of Camarillo enacted a moratorium on the issuance of film permits for adult film production, and recently acted to extend that moratorium for an additional year.

Current Legal Challenges to Measure B

Attorneys for the adult film industry filed a complaint in January 2013 in the United States District Court, Central District of California seeking an order enjoining and restraining Los Angeles County from enforcing Measure B. Similar complaints were filed by other filmmakers as well as individual performers. Among other things, the complaints allege that Measure B violates the First Amendment right to the freedom of speech, the Fourteenth Amendment right to due process, and is preempted under California state law.

The court allowed the official proponents of Measure B to join the case as interveners, and they filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit. At the same time, the industry asked for a preliminary injunction to prevent Measure B from being implemented.
On August 16, 2013, District Court Judge Dean Pregerson issued a mixed decision. The court dismissed industry arguments that a ballot initiative cannot implicate First Amendment rights, that state law preempts Measure B, and that Measure B violates their due process rights (with the exception of Fourth Amendments claims related to search and seizure). However, the court refused to dismiss industry prior restraint claims that Measure B does not provide sufficient procedural safeguards, does not have narrowly tailored requirements, and gives the County of Los Angeles unbridled discretion.

One legal commentator3 described the ruling as follows:
“In his 34-page ruling, Judge Pregerson handed partial victories to the pornographers and to the Foundation.
Pregerson agreed with the filmmakers that provisions to enforce the law are too sweeping – including powers to revoke permits, conduct warrantless searches of film sets and charge fees for permits. But Pregerson said the condom law would help protect against
3 Reynolds, Matt. “Pornographers Seek to Overturn Condom Law.” Courthouse News Service (August 20, 2013).

AB 1576
Page 9
sexually transmitted diseases in a ‘direct and material way.’
Finding the pornographers’ First Amendment claim ‘unlikely to succeed on the merits,’ Pregerson denied a preliminary injunction on that issue.

The ruling cites data from the Department of Public Health showing an increased risk of infection from sexually transmitted diseases among porn actors, including chlamydia and gonorrhea. The adult film industry claims it protects its performers by regularly testing for STDs. But Pregerson said the data introduced by the AIDS Healthcare Foundation told a different story. The filmmakers ‘by contrast, have presented evidence from individuals in the adult film industry, but not in the public health or medical profession, who claim testing is so effective and universal that condoms are unnecessary,’ Pregerson wrote.

But Pregerson found that a permit fee of $2,000 to $2,500 could be unconstitutional because the AIDS Healthcare Foundation failed to show those fees cover only ‘revenue-neutral’ administration costs. The judge was skeptical of a provision that lets the county revoke a producer’s permit without judicial review. He also found the county should not conduct warrantless searches of porn sets to determine whether producers are violating the law.

That left the question of whether Measure B, stripped of those provisions, will be as effective. Pregerson said that with some tweaking the county can still enforce the law. ‘Here, adult film actors must still use condoms. A permit is still required. Although the permit may not be modified, suspended, or revoked, fines and criminal charges may still be brought against offenders,’ Pregerson wrote. ‘While administrative searches cannot occur, nothing prevents law enforcement from obtaining a warrant to enforce Measure B.’

On fees, the judge saw ‘no reason to believe the Department’s Measure B duties cannot be performed without fees – or performed at least until the fees’ defect is cured, either by enacting a new, constitutional ordinance or providing this court with evidence of revenue neutrality.’

The plaintiffs appealed the court’s ruling to the Ninth District Court of Appeals, which heard oral argument in the matter on March 3, 2014. A decision from the Court of Appeal is pending.

Recent Media Reports on Industry Impact of Measure B
According to recent media reports, the number of film permits issued to adult film producers decreased by 95 percent in Los Angeles County following the enactment of Measure B. As of November 19, 2013, only 24 permits for adult films had been filed in Los Angeles County, compared with 480 filed in the same period in 20124. Other media reports have indicated that adult film production may have shifted to other jurisdictions5 to avoid the reach of Measure B, including to Las Vegas, Nevada6.
4 Miles, Kathleen. “LA Porn Industry Disappears After Condom Law.” Huffington Post (November 19, 2013).
5 Also see the discussion above about related ordinances and other measures in neighboring jurisdictions.
6 Dreier, Hannah. “Porn Production Moves to Vegas After LA’s Condom Law.” Associated Press (January 1, 2014).

AB 1576
Page 10
Critics of Measure B contend that these reports confirm predictions that the measure would drive the industry out of Los Angeles County or underground (continuing to operate in Los Angeles County but not in compliance with Measure B or other requirements).

The author states the following in support of this bill:
“Adult film production is a multi-billion dollar industry. California based production of adult films account for the vast majority of this business, employing thousands of Californians and generating millions of dollars in tax revenue.
Workers in agriculture, food service, healthcare, construction and many other industries benefit from stringent work place safety requirements that keep workers’ compensation costs down and ensure a safe environment to earn a living. The adult film industry, given the type of work required, disproportionately exposes actors to a range of health and safety risks. The industry is largely self-regulated and has done an inadequate job of protecting its employees from disease infection.

According to the Los Angeles Department of Public Health (Department), workers in adult films are ten times more likely to be infected with a sexually transmitted disease (STD), such as HIV, than the population at large. In 2013, there were up to five documented HIV transmissions of adult film actors, leading to three separate self-imposed yet unenforced production moratoriums.
The result of this unsafe work environment is a public health crisis that would be preventable if reasonable steps were taken to protect these employees in the workplace.”

Therefore, the author argues that this bill will require adult film industry employers to ensure that personal protective equipment is used during the production of an adult film. The bill also clarifies that employers must pay for mandatory STD testing of each actor and that adult film actors must be tested for STDs at least every fourteen days. While the bill requires use of personal protective equipment in adult films, it does not require personal protective equipment to be visible in the film’s final product. The author concludes that this bill will provide statewide uniformity needed to ensure that the thousands of actors employed in this multi-billion dollar industry are given reasonable workplace safety protections needed to reduce exposure to HIV and other communicable diseases.

The AIDS Healthcare Foundation supports this bill, stating the following:
“The adult film industry accounts for thousands of workplace disease infections in California every year. During the production of adult films, workers, including but not limited to performers, are exposed to a number of sexually transmitted diseases. While these exposures fall under California’s regulatory definition of ‘bloodborne pathogens,’ the statute that directs the execution of worker safety protections is unclear about the obligations of adult film employers to document their adherence to the law.

AB 1576
Page 11
At any given time, there are approximately 2000-3000 Californians who are employed as performers, but the roll call of performers is constantly shifting. The Los Angeles Department of Public Health has documented an epidemic of sexually transmitted diseases among workers in the adult film industry. It attributes the epidemic to a variety of high-risk acts which workers are required to engage in, and to a lack of protective equipment for performers, including condoms.

LADPH estimates that condoms and other protection are used in less than 20% of hardcore heterosexual adult film. And in a study of STDs in the Los Angeles adult film industry…published last December in Sexually Transmitted Diseases, researchers found that consistent use of condoms on set was as low as 1%. Aggravating the situation is the tragic decision by some producers in the gay adult film industry to abandon decades of condom-only production in favor of films in which no protection is afforded to the performers.

According to LADPH, workers in the adult film industry are ten times more likely to be infected with a sexually transmitted disease than members of the population at large. Also, the study noted above found that 2/3 of the female study subjects and 1/3 of the male subjects had an STD, vastly exceeding the STD rates in the general population, and that 69% of them had worked in an adult film in the previous 30 days.

The adult film industry has steadfastly refused to take appropriate steps to protect its workers from diseases spread by bloodborne pathogens. Therefore, [this bill] defines without ambiguity the records that must be kept by the employer to document compliance with the requirements that condoms and other protective barriers have been used in any scene in which exposure to bloodborne pathogens might occur and that employees performing in scenes are tested for STIs frequently.”
In addition, the California Medical Association (CMA) supports this measure and states, “CMA has long been engaged in efforts to prevent the spread of and to encourage early detection and treatment of HIV. [This bill] is an important public health bill that aligns with that historic body of work. Adult entertainment workers are at high risk for being infected with a sexually transmitted disease. Requiring the use of condoms and STI testing are common-sense ways to decrease spread of disease.”

Manwin USA, a leading information technology firm specializing in adult content websites, opposes this measure, which it characterizes as a “misguided effort to expand” Measure B adopted in Los Angeles County. They contend that this bill raises some of the same constitutional issues at issue in the pending litigation over Measure B:
“Most provisions of Measure B have already been held unconstitutional and the constitutionality of the remaining provisions are currently before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals (Vivid Entertainment, LLC v. Fielding, et al.). The Ninth Circuit heard oral arguments on these remaining issues on March 3, 2014, and will likely issue its ruling on the matter sometime in the next several months. It is our understanding that the pattern and practice of the Legislature is not to interfere with pending litigation. Accordingly, we request that you reject this measure as premature.”

AB 1576
Page 12
Similarly, counsel for Vivid Entertainment, LLC states the following:
“Although the amended version of [this bill] stripped out certain requirements, the remaining provisions still raise the same core constitutional infirmities being addressed by the Ninth Circuit in Vivid Entertainment, LLC v. Fielding et al. The additional requirement of a government mandated testing program not only fails to alleviate these constitutional concerns, but, in fact raises substantial additional ones…Given the overlapping legal issues raised by both Measure B and [this bill], Vivid Entertainment respectfully requests that the Legislature forgo any action until litigation has concluded.”

The Valley Industry and Commerce Association (VICA) opposes this measure and states:
“This bill is clearly fueled by alternative motives to force the adult film industry out of California. Yet, this six billion dollar industry generates millions in state and local tax revenues annually. Adult film production is also responsible for a sizeable number of jobs in the San Fernando Valley and Los Angeles County, including sound technicians, propmasters, constumers and craft services that would otherwise be out-of-work due to runaway mainstream film production. These jobs have depleted since the passage of Measure B, L.A. County’s version of this legislation; a statewide mandate will be the final straw.”
Manwin USA raises similar concerns about the potential job and economic impact of this measure, stating the following:
“Where the impact of [this bill] will be felt the most is on small businesses and the thousands of workers who work directly or indirectly for California’s adult entertainment industry. Adult film production in California directly employs thousands of actors, directors, camera operators, gaffers, and other tradespeople and support staff. In addition, there are countless jobs indirectly generated from production, with recent data showing that for each direct job we create, approximately 3 other jobs are created indirectly.

Regardless of whether or not one watches or condones adult films, the industry is responsible for billions of dollars of economic activity in the state, the bulk of which is generated in and around the San Fernando Valley, San Diego, and San Francisco…Now, [this bill] seeks to push adult film productions out of state.

Proponents of [this bill] argue, without any factual support, that this won’t occur, but the numbers tell a much different story.
Since the passage of Measure B, film permits dropped in Los Angeles County from 456 to 24 during the same time period last year. This represented a revenue drop in film permits alone of $450,000, not to mention the millions of dollars lost by those ancillary businesses serving the Los Angeles County adult film productions. Fortunately for California, the scope of the job and revenue loss was mitigated by the local nature of Measure B, as many businesses were able to stay in business by following the productions outside of Los Angeles County. However, not all of the businesses that moved out of Los Angeles County stayed in California. Numerous productions jumped state lines to Nevada, where Las Vegas now represents the fastest growing adult film

AB 1576
Page 13
location in the country. Were [this bill] enacted, and restrictions placed on filming anywhere in California, defections would accelerate rapidly.”

Other opponents to this measure argue that current industry protocols not only work, they work well. They argue that any legislation that would diminish current industry protocols will not only put performers at risk, but also destroy an extremely effective HIV and STI prevention program. For example, the Free Speech Coalition states, “Currently, the adult movie industry does not require any performer to engage in filming with an HIV-positive individual. The industry adopted the blood borne pathogen plan [BBP) in which EVERY performer is required undergo advanced and regular testing for HIV or wear condoms. Under industry testing protocols, all producers and/or directors require performers to confirm a current negative test panel prior to shooting. Each performer is also entitled to receive confirmation that her partner has current negative test results, thereby protecting EVERY performer from the risk of transmission. The testing protocols are based on recommendations of medical experts. In large part due to the testing protocols, there has not been a single reported incident of on-set transmission in ten years."


AB 332 (Hall) from 2013 required employers engaged in the production of adult films to adopt specified practices and procedures related to protection from sexually transmitted diseases. Among other things, AB 332 required an employer to maintain engineering and work practice controls sufficient to protect employees from exposure to blood and any potentially infectious materials, including the use of condoms and other protective barriers. AB 332 was held under submission in the Assembly Appropriations Committee.

Subsequently, language virtually identical to AB 332 was amended into AB 640 (Hall) in the Senate. AB 640 was referred to the Senate Rules Committee, where it is still pending.

1) Double Referral
This bill is double-referred to the Assembly Committee on Arts, Entertainment, Sports, Tourism and Internet Media.
2) Employee/Independent Contractor Issues
As mentioned above, a major obstacle to DOSH's previous enforcement actions under the existing bloodborne pathogen standard has been the assertion by adult film production companies that the individual performers are independent contractors, rather than employees, and that therefore DOSH has no jurisdiction. AB 332 from last year attempted to resolve this difficulty by defining an "employee" to mean an employee or independent contractor, thereby statutorily providing that the bill's requirements applied to such individuals regardless of their status as employees or independent contractors.
This bill is limited to the DOSH context, where jurisdiction is generally limited to occupational health and safety issues only as they relate to employees. As discussed above, an OSHA Appeals Board ALJ recently concluded that the production crew and participants hired in one

AB 1576
Page 14
case were employees and not independent contractors. However, as cautioned above, determinations of employee/independent contractor status are very fact-specific analyses and vary from situation to situation. Other adult film producers and distributors are likely to continue to argue that the facts of their situation are distinct and different from the prior case, and will likely continue to argue that their participants or performers are independent contractors rather than employees.

3) Other Related Issues Raised in Last Year's AB 332
Some opponents of AB 332 from last year expressed concerns that the bill may have resulted in a situation where an individual who tests positive may have a claim under reasonable accommodation provisions of the Americans with Disabilities Act or the Fair Employment and Housing Act that they are entitled to employment, regardless of the safety concerns of other performers.
For example, last year the Free Speech Coalition stated the concern as follows:
"Currently, the adult movie industry does not require any performer to engage in filming with an HIV-positive individual. The industry adopted the blood-borne pathogen plan (BBP) in which EVERY performer is required undergo advanced and regular testing for HIV or wear condoms. Under industry testing protocols, all producers and/or directors require performers to confirm a current negative test panel prior to shooting. Each performer is also entitled to receive confirmation that her partner has current negative test results, thereby protecting EVERY performer from the risk of transmission. The testing protocols are based on recommendations of medical experts. In large part due to the testing protocols, there has not been a single reported incident of on-set transmission in over eight years.

Unfortunately, [this bill] will abandon this testing protocol, leaving performers without the ability to identify the status of their sexual partners. Instead, performers will be forced to engage in sexual activity with individuals who are HIV positive; a significant rollback of the industry’s health and safety plan. According to the FDA, the proper use of condoms still carries a risk of transmission. Therefore, [this bill] will actually put performers in greater risk of infection than under the industry’s own standards; currently, a performer is notified of his or her positive test BEFORE any sexual contact and the positive performer is prohibited from participating in a movie shoot.”

The analysis prepared last year by the Assembly Committee on Arts, Entertainment, Sports, Tourism and Internet Media also quoted the following concerns from a recent editorial:

“Condoms undeniably help lower the risks of HIV infection. But that doesn’t mean the government should mandate condom use in adult movies – and it certainly doesn’t mean that such regulation is a good idea… Nor would adult film producers be allowed to ‘discriminate’ by refusing employment to HIV-positive performers. As a result, untested and HIV-positive performers would be able to work in the industry, raising the risks of HIV outbreaks…”7
7 Padilla, Alexandre. “Not-So-Safe Sex.” (December 7, 2009).

AB 1576
Page 15
Last year, the sponsor of AB 332 responded to these concerns as follows:
“[This bill] does not change current law; DOSH is already enforcing the bloodborne pathogen standard in adult filmmaking. As far as we know, there has not been a single case of employment discrimination brought against an adult producer by a person with HIV or another STD who has been refused employment as a performer in an adult film. We cannot predict what a court might conclude if there ever is a situation in which an adult film producer asserts that a person’s HIV or STD status is a medical condition that might endanger the health and safety of the performer or others (pursuant to Government Code 12940) and prevents that person from performing. We cannot predict whether a court would find that the use of a condom or other protective barrier constituted a reasonable accommodation. But again, a case like that could happen now, and [this bill] does not impact that possibility.”
It is worth noting that the Fair Employment and Housing Act provides that the prohibition against discrimination based on disability or medical condition “does not prohibit an employer from refusing to hire or discharging an employee who, because of the employee’s medical condition, is unable to perform his or her essential duties even with reasonable accommodations, or cannot perform those duties in a manner that would not endanger the employee’s health or safety or the health or safety of others even with reasonable accommodations.” (Government Code Section 12940 (a)(2))(Emphasis provided).

This is similar to the “direct threat” defense under the federal Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) which provides that an employer may lawfully exclude an individual from employment for safety reasons only if the employer can show that employment of the individual would pose a “direct threat.” The EEOC’s ADA regulations explain that “direct threat” means “a significant risk of substantial harm to the health or safety of the individual or others that cannot be eliminated or reduced by reasonable accommodation.”

4) Recent Amendment Regarding “Purchased” Scenes
The most recent set of amendments to this bill provide that an adult film employer’s injury prevention program shall include specified information for all scenes produced “or purchased.” The author’s office indicates that this amendment is intended to make an adult film employer responsible for providing certain information related not only to scenes they produce themselves, but scenes that may have been produced by another individual or entity and purchased by the adult film employer for distribution.
Opponents have raised a series of additional concerns about this specific amendment to the bill with committee staff, but at the time of preparation of this analysis were still analyzing the amendment and its implications. However, opponents did provide a brief initial response as follows:
“The amendment appears to impose burdensome recordkeeping requirements not only on the employer, but also on each entity in the upstream chain of commerce, regardless of the fact that they have no additional knowledge or information regarding the underlying employer/employee relationship. Not only is it unprecedented for an upstream purchaser in this context to be required to keep records of downstream worker safety, but as a practical matter, this will be very costly, complicated, and burdensome to implement.

AB 1576
Page 16
Many ‘scenes’ are licensed to hundreds of different sites and/or distributors (i.e., those who ‘purchase scenes’). Under the proposed amendment, each will have to maintain detailed records about the shoot, about which they have no actual knowledge, and which raise serious and complex privacy and compliance concerns (with respect to various state and federal privacy and healthcare laws). Such concerns are heightened and compounded given that many of those who ‘purchase scenes’ are not large sophisticated operations, but small businesses, who may not have the expertise to manage and protect sensitive information, such as documentation of medical testing.

In addition, the record keeping provisions would be subject to additional Constitutional challenge, regardless of the outcome of the Ninth Circuit’s consideration of Vivid v. Fielding. As the record keeping requirements are limited to ‘adult film employers,’ and ‘adult films’ are defined in the statute based upon content, they are considered content-based restrictions, and are subject to higher constitutional scrutiny. The breadth of the amendment’s requirements, particularly targeting those who have no independent knowledge of facts, cannot meet intermediate scrutiny, let alone strict scrutiny.”


AIDS Healthcare Foundation
American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists
Beyond AIDS
California Academy of Preventive Medicine
California Communities United Institute
California Employment Lawyers Association
California Medical Association
California Public Health Association-North
California State Association of Occupational Health Nurses
Fielding School of Public Health, UCLA
National Coalition of STD Directors
Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California
Professor Jeffrey Klausner of Medicine and Public Health, UCLA

Cutting Edge Testing
Free Speech Coalition
Ireland Entertainment
Manwin USA
Sean Darcy, MD Professional Corporation
Unsound Labs
Valley Industry and Commerce Association
Vivid Entertainment, LLC

A Brief History of Mansef/Manwin/MindGeek

I have been asked for a brief history of Mindgeek,  I put together the following…If anyone sees any glaring omissions or anything please let me know, its actually important.  I left out company names and such because that is covered in a different question.

Originally Matt Keezer, Ouissam Youssef, and Stephane Manos made money in the biz as affiliates. From there, they went on to found Brazzers. Behind the scenes, however, they were financing and running some of the most successful tube sites, creating a two-pronged attack to soak up the produced content in California, and offer it for free through their sites. The company they formed was called Mansef.

In October 2009, the U.S. Secret Service’s Organized Fraud Task Force in Atlanta seized about $6.4 million in funds from two Fidelity bank accounts controlled by Mansef, the Brazzers holding company.

the Feds accused the company of money-laundering: More than $9 million had been wired into the two accounts over a three-month period from banks in Israel and other countries on financial-fraud watch lists.

Mansef ended up taking a fine and forfeiting the funds to settle the international money laundering case

Along came Fabian Thylmann to buy Mansef.  Thylmann wrote an affiliate-tracking software package called NATS that came to dominate the industry. It should be noted here that Thylmann, through NATS would have intimate knowledge of which affiliates were big producers and which ones weren’t.  There were unproven allegations that Thylmann had a “back door” into NATS, which allowed Mansef, now renamed to Manwin to know which companies were lucrative purchases.

For a long time Manwin denied owning any tubesites but eventually were forced to admit that in fact they owned several

Manwin went on a buying spree after getting a 360M dollar loan from Colbeck Capital, which Colbeck sold off in pieces to companies like fortress investment group

Manwin bought lots of popular brands, both web and traditional adult markets.

Most people inside always thought Thylann was nothing more than a front man, a paid fall guy.  Ouissam yousef, Stefane Manos and Matt Keezer all had offices at the Manwin HQ in Montreal as well as Manwin email addresses.  Many believed that behind the scenes they were still in charge.

Earlier this year Manwin, in an effort to distance itself from the mess created when it got out that Colbeck had financed them, decided to rebrand themselves with the innocuous sounding name MindGeek.  at the same time they merged with redtube, one of the few highly profitable tubesites they did NOT own.  the idea was to put the tubesites and the most controversial assets into a part of the company that is separate from MindGeek.  it also isolated all the mismanaged and financially distressed purchases like Digital Playground, Playboy and others from the profitable tubesites.


I Get Quoted in Maxim

I Get a Blurb in the current issue of Maxim.

I haven’t seen it yet but I am told I am quoted in the current issue of Maxim magazine in an article about Backroom casting couch.

It isn’t online but in the print issue,  I will try to nab a copy today

It’s Weird How Often I Get Miscategorized


I Don’t know if porners are just that stupid or if maybe I’m not clear.

I tell porners hey  we got a problem with STDs in Porn Valley and we might wanna use condoms til we address that and suddenly that means I’m on the side of Michael Weinstein and AHF.

Or I say maybe we should consider putting hardcore material behind a wall that requires a credit card to get through, suddenly that means I am for a law to accomplish that.

Of course neither is true, I simply try to point out problems that I see waiting to bite us in the ass and my detractors try to use that to twist my views so that they might discredit me.

Ya know why they do that?  One of my readers pointed it out in a private email….They do it because they are afraid of what I am saying.  The thing that puzzles me is why…Do they somehow think that I am tipping off authorities or whomever, that if it weren’t for me these things would go unnoticed?  Surely they aren’t that naive.

Another reader pointed out that they will go to great lengths to distract the attention that is falling on The FSC and Doctor Kulbersh and Dr Pirani, what’s interesting about that one is that this person works for…AVN, and has direct ties to people in The FSC.

I get it,  but I aint going anywhere and I aint changin nothing. And for the record, if you have any questions about where I stand on an issue…all ya gotta do is ask.




APAC Hosts New Performer Orientation Panel



I got this from APAC and since I generally don’t run press releases I thought about ignoring it.  But I like the idea so I placed a few phone calls and spoke honestly about my concerns.  The first being the apparent association with The FSC.  I was told that yes they admitted they made some mistakes early on by accepting help from some people in setting up the organisation but that those mistakes were learning experiences and that APAC would ABSOLUTELY be an autonomous organization.

I believed the people I spoke with because I know them to be honest and intelligent people.

I also like they idea of talent advocating for themselves and as such however this turns out if you are talent you should attend this and have your voice heard.  I encourage all talent to do so and I encourage LATATA to support this effort

I also encourage APAC not to allow any press, or anyone from The FSC to take part in this meeting in any way shape or form.

If this organization truly is autonomous and not a puppet of The FSC I will give it my full support. I would also like to point out that it is you the performers that will make the difference here, so invest a little time in your future, I have been assured that all of your thoughts, ideas and opinions are welcome and that everyone will have a voice in the direction of this organization, nothing has been pre-ordained.

The Adult Performer Advocacy Committee’s mission is to maintain and improve safety and working conditions within the adult film industry. An organization created solely by performers, APAC gives adult industry talent organized representation in matters that affect performer health, safety, and community. By creating unity amongst adult industry talent, APAC hopes to strengthen the industry’s ability to address current issues and concerns.

Last month Chanel Preston said “Porn 101 is just the beginning in our endeavor to educate.” We are now proud to invite all adult performers to our Newbie Orientation panel on April 6th in Silverlake at 7pm. Please check your LA based testing center, email, or ask your agent for the exact address. In order to maintain focus on the questions and concerns of performers, this event is not open to the public or members of the press.

About APAC:

The Adult Performer Advocacy Committee (APAC) gives adult performers organized representation in matters affecting talent health, safety, and community. The mission of APAC is to provide representation for performers in the adult film industry and to protect performers’ rights to a safer and more professional work environment. We do this through education of each other and the greater community, development of ethical best practices, and fostering of solidarity. We review existing health and safety protocols, and will initiate new ones as needed. We are committed to working cohesively with all aspects of the adult entertainment industry and the public, strengthening unity between all performers, and maintaining a work environment where workers are valued, respected, and educated. For more information, visit or

Quick2257 App Now Available For Android You Should Be Using It!

I wrote about this when it was an IPhone App and now it is available for Android, and yes I am using it, and you should be too.

It is being offered by an industry attorney who understands 2257, that being Lawrence Walters.

He isn’t price gouging with it, it’s a mere 99 cents

But MOST importantly it is VERY useful to anyone who needs to maintain 2257 records. Whether you have a large company like Wicked Pictures or just a simple Clips4Sale store this is a dollar well spent.

Its a very well designed little app that makes gathering the data, the photos and sending it to the custodian of records very easy.

Quick 2257™ allows you to:

• Create a form containing the performer’s legal name, stage name, and/or aliases;
• Record the date of original production of the depiction;
• Identify the title of the work associated with the depiction;
• Capture the front and back of the performer’s picture ID card using the device
• Sign and verify the accuracy of the information using the touch screen;
• Compile all information into a convenient .pdf file; and,
• Send the 2257 records file to the records custodian using the mobile device’s email camera function.

The app is designed with KISS methodology (Keep It Simple Stupid) and appears idiot proof.

You can bet when it becomes available for Android I will buy one, it’s worth it at many times the price

You can Buy Quick2257 App HERE

Quick2257 screen 1

Quick2257 Screen 2

Quick2257 Screen 2

Ira Isaacs What’s Next?

OK here’s the lay of the land.

The 9th circuit issued it’s decision yesterday that starts a 72 hour clock for Ira, he has 72 hrs (more like 48 now) to file an appeal or a request for an en banc hearing or the classification officer will issue a deadline by which he will have to turn himself in and start serving his sentence.

If he is deemed a flight risk they could pretty much pick him up at any time.

Isaacs has yet to respond to the ruling and my sources tell me that it is highly unlikely that an appeal would be successful, I am told that the decision from the 9th circuit came much more swiftly than Isaacs attorney had expected, signaling that an en banc hearing would be unsuccessful leaving Isaacs only with the very expensive proposition of petitioning the Supreme Court to hear the case, an even unlikelier proposition.