MFC Rules and warnings

[Lydia_Deetz]

omg , Mila...... damn girl.....
9 of 10 of of your posts I read so far are about how much you make and how great you are :violin:
I guess your other posts are about other things, but the ones I read have "SPOT LIGHT" on YOU!
Yes, SIR! (Mam) Milla!! :handgestures-salute:

 

[Bocefish]

Porn laws vary from state to state and country to country. He might be able to get away with that in Illinois, where he lives, but there's a reason that so many porn sites have that "you must be 18 or older to enter" page. Many states (and maybe the federal government too) require that page. MFC does not have that.

Most porn sites do not require the over 18 disclaimer. For example:
http://www.youjizz.com/
http://www.xhamster.com/
and so on... and MFC is a porn site.

 

[LoveLov]

at least im a sexy troll :geek:

 

[AnaVictoriaXO]

quite frankly, lovelov your a bitch And not even the "straight to the point, dont sugar coat it" type, your just a bitch. *Gasp* how dare someone discuss their accomplishments. And you just admitted to being a troll after trying to defend yourself from that in the models only section. Sorry Amber if thats too mean on here and i understand if you delete this but someone had to say it.

 

[Jebbaz]

quite frankly, lovelov your a bitch And not even the "straight to the point, dont sugar coat it" type, your just a bitch. *Gasp* how dare someone discuss their accomplishments. And you just admitted to being a troll after trying to defend yourself from that in the models only section. Sorry Amber if thats too mean on here and i understand if you delete this but someone had to say it.

:text-goodpost: :text-thankyoublue:

 

[AmberCutie]

quite frankly, lovelov your a bitch And not even the "straight to the point, dont sugar coat it" type, your just a bitch. *Gasp* how dare someone discuss their accomplishments. And you just admitted to being a troll after trying to defend yourself from that in the models only section. Sorry Amber if thats too mean on here and i understand if you delete this but someone had to say it.

Nope I just called her out in a different thread. You're all good, it's ok.

 

[SatanJonez]

quite frankly, lovelov your a bitch And not even the "straight to the point, dont sugar coat it" type, your just a bitch. *Gasp* how dare someone discuss their accomplishments. And you just admitted to being a troll after trying to defend yourself from that in the models only section. Sorry Amber if thats too mean on here and i understand if you delete this but someone had to say it.

Nope I just called her out in a different thread. You're all good, it's ok.

Amber, telling us it's okay to bash a poster who's obviously an idiot? Could it be? My dream has come true?

 

[AmberCutie]

quite frankly, lovelov your a bitch And not even the "straight to the point, dont sugar coat it" type, your just a bitch. *Gasp* how dare someone discuss their accomplishments. And you just admitted to being a troll after trying to defend yourself from that in the models only section. Sorry Amber if thats too mean on here and i understand if you delete this but someone had to say it.

Nope I just called her out in a different thread. You're all good, it's ok.

Amber, telling us it's okay to bash a poster who's obviously an idiot? Could it be? My dream has come true?

Well I never advice people to stoop to their foe's level, but stating opinions in an upright manner would be acceptable in this case.

ALSO - your hedgehog made me LoL and show why I was LoL'ing to Jawbs. :lol:

 

[Mikeythegeek]

quite frankly, lovelov your a bitch And not even the "straight to the point, dont sugar coat it" type, your just a bitch. *Gasp* how dare someone discuss their accomplishments. And you just admitted to being a troll after trying to defend yourself from that in the models only section. Sorry Amber if thats too mean on here and i understand if you delete this but someone had to say it.

Nope I just called her out in a different thread. You're all good, it's ok.

Once again, Amber reminding us all why we bow to her greatness. I would add an emote here, but all of them look like they've had 15 cans of Red Bull and my ADD riddled mind can't take it.

 

[Jebbaz]

quite frankly, lovelov your a bitch And not even the "straight to the point, dont sugar coat it" type, your just a bitch. *Gasp* how dare someone discuss their accomplishments. And you just admitted to being a troll after trying to defend yourself from that in the models only section. Sorry Amber if thats too mean on here and i understand if you delete this but someone had to say it.

Nope I just called her out in a different thread. You're all good, it's ok.

Amber, telling us it's okay to bash a poster who's obviously an idiot? Could it be? My dream has come true?

awww he looks like Gary, the hedgie who lives behind my apt. building!

 

[SatanJonez]

Cute animals solve all the worlds problems. :thumbleft:

 

[Cassidy Nicole]

I want the hedgie! Haha so adorable! They have been one of my dream pets for the longest...


Okay back on topic! Haha

 

[EllaXoXo]

quite frankly, lovelov your a bitch And not even the "straight to the point, dont sugar coat it" type, your just a bitch. *Gasp* how dare someone discuss their accomplishments. And you just admitted to being a troll after trying to defend yourself from that in the models only section. Sorry Amber if thats too mean on here and i understand if you delete this but someone had to say it.

I started cracking up when I read this and actually clapped for you! (I think I spend too much time online... reading funny things makes me respond as though there are actually people around to witness it...) Anyway! I AGREE! Now to find Amber's response to her in another thread!!

/Trolls the troll

 

[Jupiter551]

Porn laws vary from state to state and country to country. He might be able to get away with that in Illinois, where he lives, but there's a reason that so many porn sites have that "you must be 18 or older to enter" page. Many states (and maybe the federal government too) require that page. MFC does not have that.

Most porn sites do not require the over 18 disclaimer. For example:
http://www.youjizz.com/
http://www.xhamster.com/
and so on... and MFC is a porn site.

Nah it's not, if you look up their legal status and how they're incorporated they are considered an Interactive Computer Serviceunder section 230 of the US Communications Decency Act.

Basically, section 230 gives them statutory immunity to liability anything that happens on MFC because they aren't the producers of the content - the models are.

Section 230 in a nutshell is "[n]o provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider." 47 U.S.C. § 230(c)(1)

If they were a producer of material they would be legally liable for the material, including limiting access from minors , record keeping under title 18 USC 2257 (Chapter 110—Sexual exploitation and other abuse of children of the US criminal code) verifying the age of models - which they do -anyway, as a safety net basically. I suspect if they didn't do this they wouldn't have a leg to stand on in court if a model were found to be under 18, producer of content or not.

So legally, MFC isn't a pornography site - it provides bandwidth and electronic infrastructure to models and members in exchange for a fee. A broker basically.

 

[NevaehStar]

Porn laws vary from state to state and country to country. He might be able to get away with that in Illinois, where he lives, but there's a reason that so many porn sites have that "you must be 18 or older to enter" page. Many states (and maybe the federal government too) require that page. MFC does not have that.

Most porn sites do not require the over 18 disclaimer. For example:
http://www.youjizz.com/
http://www.xhamster.com/
and so on... and MFC is a porn site.

Nah it's not, if you look up their legal status and how they're incorporated they are considered an Interactive Computer Serviceunder section 230 of the US Communications Decency Act.

Basically, section 230 gives them statutory immunity to liability anything that happens on MFC because they aren't the producers of the content - the models are.
Section 230 in a nutshell is "[n]o provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider." 47 U.S.C. § 230(c)(1)

If they were a producer of material they would be legally liable for the material, including limiting access from minors , record keeping under title 18 USC 2257 (Chapter 110—Sexual exploitation and other abuse of children of the US criminal code) verifying the age of models - which they do -anyway, as a safety net basically. I suspect if they didn't do this they wouldn't have a leg to stand on in court if a model were found to be under 18, producer of content or not.

So legally, MFC isn't a pornography site - it provides bandwidth and electronic infrastructure to models and members in exchange for a fee. A broker basically.

Hmmm.. so if this is true.... then MFC is not liable for the models actions...
ok, then could the MODELS be liable for any indecent acts?
Could the models be held accountable for following/breaking these rules?
Almost seems that MFC has escaped the liability, but if Models are are commiting "porn-type actions" or have someone under 18yrs old in their room- then would they be in violation of these laws??

MFC found the loophole, but could models be in jeopardy of the Federal/State government trying to shut them down or press charges or something?? And could this ALSO be a reason why the MFC rules are in place? To keep the MODEL from violating the laws...????
Makes me wonder now.....
And anyone with clarification of this--- Please chime in!

 

[Mirra]

I suspect the rules are there mostly to make it nearly impossible for anyone to argue that MFC supports or encourages the actions there are rules against. Even with their lack of liability, a very conservative judge might try to label them as a "producer" of the content by promoting certain undesirable behaviors. I also think the fact that there are about 3 rules that ARE actively enforced illustrates what Leo really wants for the site as a big picture thing regardless of him having set MFC up in such a legally safe manner.

Sorry if this post doesn't flow very well. I'm not completely awake yet.

 

[FifthElephant]

Hmmm.. so if this is true.... then MFC is not liable for the models actions...
ok, then could the MODELS be liable for any indecent acts?
Could the models be held accountable for following/breaking these rules?
Almost seems that MFC has escaped the liability, but if Models are are commiting "porn-type actions" or have someone under 18yrs old in their room- then would they be in violation of these laws??

Seems likely.
They know that MFCs structure means that under-18s are likely to be in public chat. The terms and conditions say no under 18s, I'm unsure that helps the model though.

http://camgirlnotes.15.forumer.com/inde ... entry10207 - refers to a court decision that is promising - it means that US federal prosecutors can't easily pick the most conservative jurisdiction any more. (if this has been upheld)

The law on underaged viewers varies worldwide.
The sexual offences act 2005 in the UK, for example, it seems to be an offence to cause under 16s to watch porn of any sort if you know they are under 16, and the intent is your sexual gratification.
(it would of course be really hard to argue that the first applied, but not the latter).
So, banning anyone that pops up and says 'I am 12, what is this' - would seem to keep the model out of that part of the law.

A quick google fails to reveal any prosecutions of individual camgirls.

 

[Jupiter551]

Hmmm.. so if this is true.... then MFC is not liable for the models actions...
ok, then could the MODELS be liable for any indecent acts?

Potentially? Sure, no more nor less than the model would be if she was caught doing something illegal off cam. I doubt a model could be held liable for doing anything legal where she is broadcasting from, but illegal in a place that it is viewed.

Could the models be held accountable for following/breaking these rules?

In a nutshell, yes. Laws vary between jurisdiction but one of the more disturbing illegal acts I've witnessed occurring more than once (and written to Leo about btw, who took no apparent action) is "ageplay" - that is a model pretending to be under 18. Even if both sides know it's acting - it's illegal and carries a potential prison term.

Almost seems that MFC has escaped the liability, but if Models are are commiting "porn-type actions" or have someone under 18yrs old in their room- then would they be in violation of these laws??

MFC, in their defense can't be liable for the live actions of hundreds of models at once - they can lay down the rules, they can't stop them being broken in realtime.

I very much doubt a model could be held responsible for under 18s accessing their cam except obviously where a customer states they are underage, you can tell by looking at their cam etc...you're not expected to ID check everyone who enters the chatroom, but you ARE expected to boot anyone who you have reason to believe is underage. Honestly, half the guests are probably 15, but there's nothing anyone can do about that, nor can anyone be held responsible.

MFC puts adult only warnings around the site, it's not practical or possible to do more than that. Even if you needed a valid credit card to sign up for "age verification", one model told me a guy took her pvt and he was 14....they didn't do anything sexual or nudity related (she says), just asked her advice about girls etc...was his dad's account, and said if he complained he'd tell mom about the account (lol).

MFC found the loophole, but could models be in jeopardy of the Federal/State government trying to shut them down or press charges or something?? And could this ALSO be a reason why the MFC rules are in place? To keep the MODEL from violating the laws...????

Well you're always liable legally for your actions on MFC or anywhere else. That being said, unless you SEVERELY overstep the mark, being prosecuted on indecency grounds is extremely unlikely - a model peeing on cam (for instance) isn't worth anyone's time or money to pursue.

I can't speculate on MFC's motives about why the rules are in place, but I suspect that they are both to protect MFC's exemption from liability - the fact that the rules are clearly stated helps protect MFC's exemption - and it's also against their interests for models to be violating laws.

The most obvious example is 2257 stated above - the reason why you're not meant to have unregistered people on cam - legally you as a "producer" of adult content are required (by US law at least) to maintain records proving the age of anyone involved in a performance, and to state where these records are held and by whom. MFC effectively does this for you (although under their exempt status they're not technically required to), and in so doing further protects themselves.

My opinion (and it's only an opinion) is that I agree with Mirra - if something were ever serious enough to make it into court there are a lot of gray areas, and MFC has set it up so that they're as free from liability as possible.

 

[NevaehStar]

Thank You for your responses to that. I had never thought about those matters & the model *could* be liable instead of MFC.
I understand that it would be a very difficult & drawn out case if anyone would pursue the models legally.

BUT... in todays world... I wouldn't doubt it if one day somebody tried!!
Just think of all the anti-porn advocates out there! I wouldn't put it past them to attempt some chaos, or even a anti-porn parent who caught their child using these cam sites. An go into a frenzy.
I know it is far fetched, and anyone can sue or take legal action against almost anything anymore, but the possibility is there!
And i know there isn't much worry about this -until- or -if- one day someone actually tried to pursue it.

Kinda reminds me of the chaos that happened with the file sharing site -Limewire-.
Individual people getting sued over copyrighted music which they got free from sharing with other people through Limewire. Limewire not being liable for their users actions. And eventually even though Limewire was similar to MFC & just the "hosting" site or whatever, they got shutdown after lengthy legal battles. I think the Limewire incident was coming to mind somewhat when this part of the discussion started and how -it could- happen to MFC & the models.

But,again, it would be a lengthy & chaotic event. And likelyhood is minimal, but reality says its possible.

Thank You again for clarification!

 

[EllaXoXo]

I doubt a model could be held liable for doing anything legal where she is broadcasting from, but illegal in a place that it is viewed.

Wouldn't it be opposite? In the models rules section it states we cannot do anything that is considered illegal in OUR county. I would think that as long as we are legal where we are camming from, we should be alright. Oklahoma, I believe, has anti-porn laws and you cannot buy/sell/distribute porn there. But, since we are selling porn from MFC headquarters (where the money is handled), we are producing it in our porn-happy states, we should be alright since we aren't actively selling it there. The Pentagon takes all the precautions that it can to prevent people from gaining access to sensitive information, but if someone accesses it, it isn't the Pentagon that goes on trial for producing the info, it's the person who illegally hacked in (same can be said if you are illegally accessing something, but didn't need to hack... I think?). Granted, we could ban Ok, but I still think the onus falls on those who are purchasing it from within the state? Our feed is just accessed by them, just as they could access anything online if they have the skills to get around firewalls, etc.

I don't really know... just my thoughts, no real evidence to back it up in anyway.

 

[FifthElephant]

I doubt a model could be held liable for doing anything legal where she is broadcasting from, but illegal in a place that it is viewed.

Wouldn't it be opposite? In the models rules section it states we cannot do anything that is considered illegal in OUR county. I would think that as long as we are legal where we are camming from, we should be alright. .

Some of the things models can do are covered under 'sex tourism' laws - that tend to be prosecutable on an extraterritorial basis.

For example, a model doing a show when a child wanders into the background is clearly (under UK law) producing child porn.

In principle, this could lead to a prosecution, and European arrest warrant, or a prosecution in their absence, and jailtime if they hit UK shores.

 

[Jupiter551]

I doubt a model could be held liable for doing anything legal where she is broadcasting from, but illegal in a place that it is viewed.

Wouldn't it be opposite? In the models rules section it states we cannot do anything that is considered illegal in OUR county. I would think that as long as we are legal where we are camming from, we should be alright. Oklahoma, I believe, has anti-porn laws and you cannot buy/sell/distribute porn there. But, since we are selling porn from MFC headquarters (where the money is handled), we are producing it in our porn-happy states, we should be alright since we aren't actively selling it there. The Pentagon takes all the precautions that it can to prevent people from gaining access to sensitive information, but if someone accesses it, it isn't the Pentagon that goes on trial for producing the info, it's the person who illegally hacked in (same can be said if you are illegally accessing something, but didn't need to hack... I think?). Granted, we could ban Ok, but I still think the onus falls on those who are purchasing it from within the state? Our feed is just accessed by them, just as they could access anything online if they have the skills to get around firewalls, etc.

I don't really know... just my thoughts, no real evidence to back it up in anyway.

I think you may have misread what I posted Ella, I said a model wouldn't be liable for prosecution if what she's doing is legal where she lives. You'll see in the fine print of many age verification frontpages of porn sites that you must be 18, or 21 if applicable in your area and a standard statement something along these lines "the viewing, reading and downloading of sexually explicit materials does not violate the standards of my community, town, city, state or country", and not agreeing to these terms redirects you off the site - it shifts responsibility squarely onto the consumer. Same on MFC - if you live somewhere it's illegal to show something, you're responsible if you get busted - not the model.

Fifth - I'll take your word for it, though I would think it would be a matter for the local authorities, children in a sexually explicit setting violates many countries child pornography laws though I don't see what it has to do with sex tourism.

 

[Jebbaz]

this entire page, tl;dr.

 

[Twinkle03]

so, since everyone else masturbates in public (and all the fucking top models do) and they make tons of tokens, they're good?

 

[SatanJonez]

so, since everyone else masturbates in public (and all the fucking top models do) and they make tons of tokens, they're good?

 

[MilaMilan]

MFC seems to apply the rules whenever they want but it seems like what Candie said already confirmed my ideas > when your name is Jalyn or Aspen ( who I both adore and love by the way ) you can do 50 min anal shows and DP in open with 1500-2500 guys , but when you are not a topmodel you get warned , suspended for exactly the same thing...

I have given up abiding by the rules as I need to do open shows now to even have a chance to be up there. In the past I abide by the rules, but why should I when no one else does........ I have no problem with toys in open myself ..but never did before as it was against the rules.

My personal issue I was warned by MFC on the 27th of March > for what you might ask ? Anal ? DP? Toys in open?
No MFC warned me for showing video clips on my laptop of videos I am selling !
There is no rule what so ever on that in any Wiki rules , the only reference to video is that you are not allowed to show taped videoshows INSTEAD of a live girl. Nothing about videos ....

I asked them where showing videos stood in the rules> message you can show videos but not with men ......
So now I can show but not with men...I asked them how about all those girls in the top 5 fucking themselves with toys for hours > in the rules ...they do not apply when you are an US model ? As expected I am still waiting for the answer......

MFC is very selective with their warnings ...and turns a blind eye to much more obvious breaking of rules in the top 20 including the studio influence ..but hey who am I...I am just a dumb cam whore from Thailand .

 

[Deleted member 2360]

Hey ladies,

I am quite new to all of this, and I am awaiting an answer from MFC about what can and cannot be done exactly in public, as they do suggest to check out other models for ideas on games and such, which I have, and some of them are incredibly good (might I add!!!)

So, what is the allrounder, that most ladies do stuff in public then? Has anyone actually ever got banned?

 

[NevaehStar]

Hey ladies,

I am quite new to all of this, and I am awaiting an answer from MFC about what can and cannot be done exactly in public, as they do suggest to check out other models for ideas on games and such, which I have, and some of them are incredibly good (might I add!!!)

So, what is the allrounder, that most ladies do stuff in public then? Has anyone actually ever got banned?

Here is the link to the MFC Wiki, Rules:
http://wiki.myfreecams.com/wiki/Rules_f ... _on_camera

I suggest all models to be sure to read thru the whole MFC Wiki, so you are aware of the "Standards" & it tells you pretty much all your basics from the How-To's to the Rules & then some.

Now... there are still many models who do go by these rules... though anymore it seems the majority do not. Read through this thread & other threads about these topics & you will understand what we all have been battling with.
These threads are a wonderful wealth of information to answer just about all your questions.
To get straight to the point about the rules, yes MFC has them & by info I've read here, some models have gotten warned/fined/banned for certain things, but it tends to be a pick & choose. Many of the biggest ban-offenses seem to be man-on-cam,children/babies/minors on cam & urination/defecation things.But of course MFC can warn/fine/ban for breaking any of their rules at anytime so if u decide to stray from the rules, then you must realize that it CAN happen. It's at your own risk.
So by the rules, you can get naked, dance around, make sexual type gesturing & some other tasteful sexiness. Many girls rub themselves as long as theres no penetration,actual masturbation, toys etc...

Hope this helps! And do read the Wiki then also search the threads for related info, it is definately the 2 best tools available.

 

[Jupiter551]

I've never personally seen any model get banned for using hitachi/dildos in public, but I guess it can happen

 

[AmyLemon]

Hey ladies,

I am quite new to all of this, and I am awaiting an answer from MFC about what can and cannot be done exactly in public, as they do suggest to check out other models for ideas on games and such, which I have, and some of them are incredibly good (might I add!!!)

So, what is the allrounder, that most ladies do stuff in public then? Has anyone actually ever got banned?

I've been warned, I've never been fined and I've certainly never been banned. I suspect the entire system is 100% based on "complaints" and screencaps from disgruntled premiums and there's something of a three strike rule at work. I presume that if I had ignored my warning I would have been fined, and if I had continued the "deviant" behavior after the fine I would have been suspended (for perhaps a day, that seems the norm among the girls who do live cock and/or live children and/or scat in public chat, they're typically back in business within 48 hours). Banning results in a brief suspension and perhaps a fine but there doesn't appear to be any long-term consequences.

I keep my bidness in group or private primarily but I feel like I could easily do the following without consequence if I wanted to (I presume admin wouldn't care):
* Full spread in public
* Extreme closeup in public
* Penetration in public
* Anal in public
* DP in public
* Fisting in public
* Squirting in public

If MFC admin received a series of complaints about my conduct I would get warned but I doubt I would get fined and I'd be quite shocked if I got banned.
But then, you never really know. A girl on the forum has been randomly fined for a zoom-spread in public (which honestly is the go-to camera angle for many girls, if I ever feel like I need to see a urethral opening I just visit Lounge for a few minutes lulz, extreme pussy closeups are the norm these days on MFC), and Mila got shit for showing flashes of B/G film clips in the midst of her show- but in contrast I've had hundreds of random jerking cocks on cam during a shuffle people show for 4 hours and didn't get fined for my conduct. So, basically, it's really goddamn random and inherently unfair.

Default Rule of Thumb: Do what feels right for you, and what makes good long-term business sense for you. Hope that nobody complains about the minor infractions (penetration, zoom, spread) if you choose to pursue them in your performances. Don't break any internationally recognized obscenity laws in public like animals/children, golden-showers/scat/odd insertion.