Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!rochester!ritcv!cci632!rb
From: rb@cci632.UUCP (Rex Ballard)
Newsgroups: net.legal,soc.singles
Subject: Re: Re: Swinging fists (was AG's Commission ...)
Message-ID: <462@cci632.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 5-Oct-86 18:10:00 EDT
Article-I.D.: cci632.462
Posted: Sun Oct  5 18:10:00 1986
Date-Received: Tue, 7-Oct-86 20:51:34 EDT
References: <354@cullvax.UUCP> <416@cci632.UUCP> <1583@mtx5a.UUCP>
Reply-To: rb@ccird1.UUCP (Rex Ballard)
Distribution: net
Organization: CCI, Rochester Development, Rochester, NY
Lines: 71
Xref: mnetor net.legal:3805 soc.singles:372

In article <1583@mtx5a.UUCP> mat@mtx5a.UUCP (m.terribile) writes:
>> [ on the ``make a porn flick or starve'' question ]
>> Actually, many of us would work for a living.  We might be doing something
>> other than what we are doing now, but boredom, lonliness, and a desire
>> for better things (assuming work for pay) would be good motivators.
>> 
>> As to the "that or starve" issue.  There are other alternatives, such as
>> working at lower paying jobs.  Minimum pay for a film is usually over
>> $100/day.  With film schedules running several weeks.  Add royalties,
>> residuals, and side income such as interviews, and you have a tidy sum.
>> Replace "that or starve" with "that or sell my caddy", and you have a
>> better picture.
>
>Almost.  What about a student carrying a full workload,

You might get more sympathy with "that or quit school", but the end isn't that
much different.  In fact, it's even admirable.

>or a person with
>skills that require a sophisticated job to take advantage of?

I couldn't be a nuclear phsysicist that week, so I took a porn job?

>Minimum wage can't keep you housed in many cities.

That isn't porn's fault.  Roommates, house sharing, and federal aid are
available.

>> Actors DO risk extended periods of unemployment, even starvation.  This
>> is a choice, and not necessarily an irreversable one.
>
>The legit film industry and the sex film industry have very little in
>common.  Even the sex film recruiter and the ``models'' who spoke before
>the Commission indicated that if you were interested in acting, sex films
>of the sort they were involved with were the *worst* thing you could do.

This is partially true, and unfortunate.  Too much "snobbery".  To get
into legit, you have to agree to give up as much as 75% of your income
for as much as 7 years.  This is assuming you have good connections.

>> If there were still 65% of some material that was filmed coercion, I would
>> still seek to protect the 35% who do not use coercion.
>Fair enough.  But there are still some problems (mentioned in another article.)


>> One important issue here.  Neither the federal government nor the
>> locals are allowed to ban the sale and distribution of pornography
>> entirely.  It can be restricted to adults, sold only in certain
>> "red light districts", liscenced, rated, or otherwise regulated.
>> It is even legal to harass dealers, if there is reason to believe
>> that other activities (prostitution, public sex, drugs, other crimes)
>> are also being committed.
>
>Not quite.  When the material falls into the domain of true legal obscenity,
>distribution (though not posession) can be prohibited.

Care to give some examples of porn that has been banned entirely, and the
evidence required for an issue to be banned?.

>> If the issue is what to do about the 65%, then perhaps giving the 35%
>> better marketing conditions would increase the growth of that market.
>
>Fair enough.  Is there a way to put a ``union label'' on these films?

Yes!!!  Requiring release forms for each release of the material, AFTER
filming.  No signature, and the lawsuits could close the picture and
the producer.

>	from Mole End			Mark Terribile

Rex B.