WARNING: You *will* be recorded now, constantly.

[trotskyleon]

MFC actually owns the copyright on all the cam streams. The models might need permission to re-sell that content.

If you record it yourself (not record the stream) then its fine. Like record it from your webcam (better quality).

I'm sure they'd be happy to work for the people who actually produce the stuff they hate. :lol:

Now now.....

MFC though should be able to encrypt the stream and stop them from automatically recording the show.

Bandwidth limitations are easily overcome. An encryption from the model side, might be all thats required? I mean are they recording streams from other camsites too? Like streammate?

 

[bawksy]

camgirls have a reasonable expectation of being able to block out states/provinces/countries that their family and friends live in

Like Amber said, only if they're retarded. While the geo filter does help a bit, it's far from foolproof.

There's many models who never agreed to that level of exposure to everyone in their lives.

See: https://www.ambercutie.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=15&t=1123

Oh, and your analogy to recording broadcast TV doesn't hold true. It is illegal, just not pursued.

Not sure what jurisdiction you're talking about, but in the USA, home recording is quite legal and is backed by a pretty big VCR and DVR industry. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_Corp._of_America_v._Universal_City_Studios,_Inc.

 

[Evvie]

My mind is also blown. The effort that went into making this thing is phenomenal.

A good comparison for what these people are up to is like recording broadcast TV. The show is broadcast to the word, free for anyone to watch, or with the right equipment, record. There's nothing a broadcaster can do to prevent it. If you do it in your home, nobody can stop you, and it's not even illegal. But once you start sharing it, then it becomes illegal. It'll be interesting to see if MFC enacts any mitigation techniques to try to slow these guys down.

In any case, I wouldn't get too worked up about it. It's just public shows. If people want to watch recordings of old public shows, then whatever. I personally don't see what the appeal is of archiving and sharing these shows anyways. The thing that makes cam shows interesting is interacting with them live. Take away the "live" part, and all you have is a shitty-image-quality girls-only show.

On MFC the camgirls have a reasonable expectation of being able to block out states/provinces/countries that their family and friends live in, since that's one of the features MFC agrees to provide them on signing up. This site strips their right to that. Now anyone can easily find recordings of them. And you know as well as I do 'public' shows pretty much include everything for most models. There's very few I can think of who have never done a cumshow in public on the odd occasion. Or for that matter BJ, oil, bath, lingerie, close-ups, even getting drunk.

There's many models who never agreed to that level of exposure to everyone in their lives.

Oh, and your analogy to recording broadcast TV doesn't hold true. It is illegal, just not pursued. Although if you publicize it too much I imagine the National Football League might come down on you for recording the 'yearly BIG playoff in football. Them guys are militant about their copyrights. Technically I'm not even allowed to say the word that means 'yearly BIG playoff in football' without their express written permission, it's trademarked and they've sued bars galore for doing so.

In the sex industry, studio pornography and live camming are the most exposed branches you can find. On the exposure hierarchy, camming is on the top. Women may not want exposure but they have still chosen a job with huge inherent amounts. I feel sorry for women who don't realize this, but when you sign up for camming you sign up for exposure. If a woman wants to work in the adult industry but exposure is a problem, she should consider stripping or escorting instead.

 

[Anonymous]

If a model wishes to use the geoblock feature (because it sometimes works), while realizing that it's not foolproof, then that's her prerogative. And it/she isn't "retarded." I use it on MFC because the option is there, and I choose to use it.

 

[bawksy]

If a woman wants to work in the adult industry but exposure is a problem, she should consider stripping or escorting instead.

Pro tip: don't Facebook friend all the other strippers and employees at the strip club. All it takes is figuring out one girl's real name to figure out ALL their names.

 

[AmberCutie]

camgirls have a reasonable expectation of being able to block out states/provinces/countries that their family and friends live in

Like Amber said, only if they're retarded. While the geo filter does help a bit, it's far from foolproof.

There's many models who never agreed to that level of exposure to everyone in their lives.

See: https://www.ambercutie.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=15&t=1123

You fucker, I said "naive" not "retarded".

 

[Just Me]

camgirls have a reasonable expectation of being able to block out states/provinces/countries that their family and friends live in

Like Amber said, only if they're retarded. While the geo filter does help a bit, it's far from foolproof.

There's many models who never agreed to that level of exposure to everyone in their lives.

See: https://www.ambercutie.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=15&t=1123

You fucker, I said "naive" not "retarded".

In bawksy's world, those words are synonymous. :lol:

 

[Trav]

I was referencing this site, without mentioning it specifically, back during the Dwight thread.(Side note, I dunno if anyone noticed who the 'Porn Section Manager' is but you might recognize him lol.) The MFC-Collector and MFC-Archiver users have been posting thousand-show mega-posts for a while now.

 

[starsign]

While the link from the OP was deleted, all you have to do is to type the site URL in your browser. It might be a good idea to edit the OP further so the site name wouldn't be visible at all. This is too much exposure for the pirates now.

 

[emptiedglass]

While the link from the OP was deleted, all you have to do is to type the site URL in your browser. It might be a good idea to edit the OP further so the site name wouldn't be visible at all. This is too much exposure for the pirates now.

Amber's already edited it out of the original message. :thumbleft:

 

[AmberCutie]

I will now kindly ask that you all stop freaking out about the name of the site being in the thread. This isn't something new or revolutionary, it has been around for ages, and having a discussion about something sometimes requires names of *bad* websites to be used.

Relax.

 

[Lintilla]

I have no idea where these guys keep getting the idea that if a stream is public/unencrypted and as long as they're not making a profit that it's fair game, 100% legal for them to do what they please with. Accessible + free + public doesn't add up to public domain, and copyright protections still apply.

Yes, you can legally use copyrighted work in certain ways that are considered fair use, which can include home recording for personal use. That's exactly what's established by Sony vs Universal. It's not accessing or even recording something that's illegal. It's reposting that recording for others. I'm not sure how they're making that final leap in logic to conclude that it's legal to share a recording. I can't turn around and stream things from my DVR to my website or play them for an audience, even for free, without a license. Well, I mean, I can, but I'd be breaking the law in exactly the same way these guys are...

Plenty of bars and clubs get away with showing sports and playing music without the correct license. They might get away with it for years. They might get away with it forever. The fact that they don't get in trouble does not amount to confirmation that they're not breaking any law.

(As for whether it's illegal to say "Super Bowl" without permission, which is something else I saw claimed in this thread... that's absolutely garbage. You can use any trademark you like in any way you like as long as you don't commit trademark infringement/libel/etc., and what constitutes trademark infringement is quite specific. What would not be legal, for instance, would be for me to claim in a way that anyone might be likely to believe that this thread is an official Super Bowl sponsor. Of course, any trademark owner with a lot of money can threaten, intimidate and bully, but a cease and desist letter doesn't actually make any action illegal, just potentially unwise. Anyway, this bit is off topic and just relates to one of my pet peeves, please ignore.)

 

[trotskyleon]

I have no idea where these guys keep getting the idea that if a stream is public/unencrypted and as long as they're not making a profit that it's fair game, 100% legal for them to do what they please with. Accessible + free + public doesn't add up to public domain, and copyright protections still apply.

They are making profit though. So it is illegal. They have ads everywhere. Each time you download a file they get some money.

Yes, you can legally use copyrighted work in certain ways that are considered fair use, which can include home recording for personal use. That's exactly what's established by Sony vs Universal. It's not accessing or even recording something that's illegal. It's reposting that recording for others. I'm not sure how they're making that final leap in logic to conclude that it's legal to share a recording. I can't turn around and stream things from my DVR to my website or play them for an audience, even for free, without a license. Well, I mean, I can, but I'd be breaking the law in exactly the same way these guys are...

No but anyone can record a public show. So does it make a differnece if you share it? Like share your DVD disc?

 

[HiGirlsRHot]

I have no idea where these guys keep getting the idea that if a stream is public/unencrypted and as long as they're not making a profit that it's fair game, 100% legal for them to do what they please with. Accessible + free + public doesn't add up to public domain, and copyright protections still apply.

They are making profit though. So it is illegal. They have ads everywhere. Each time you download a file they get some money.

Yes, you can legally use copyrighted work in certain ways that are considered fair use, which can include home recording for personal use. That's exactly what's established by Sony vs Universal. It's not accessing or even recording something that's illegal. It's reposting that recording for others. I'm not sure how they're making that final leap in logic to conclude that it's legal to share a recording. I can't turn around and stream things from my DVR to my website or play them for an audience, even for free, without a license. Well, I mean, I can, but I'd be breaking the law in exactly the same way these guys are...

No but anyone can record a public show. So does it make a differnece if you share it? Like share your DVD disc?

It doesn't make a difference if they make money or not. The fact they are sharing the files with others without the expressed written permission of the copyright holders, makes it a copyright infringement. It would also most certainly be considered a rebroadcast which is expressly forbidden under the copyright laws. If they are making money with their website it just makes them liable to pay more money than if they were doing strictly for free.

There are plenty of grey areas in copyright law. Loaning your friend a DVD is legal, under the first sale doctrine. Copying a DVD to your hard drive, and then loaning the DVD is a grey area. (You are allowed to make a copy for archival purpose which is why it could be argued that is legal.) What is clearly illegal is posting a digital image in the cloud and inviting the world to make a copy of it.

The key to understanding copyright law, is the word "copy".

 

[Trav]

I didn't see the original link posted in the OP, so this may be redundant, but I found a post on the site-to-not-be-named and took the liberty of screencapping it because I think a lot of people will be interested in seeing it. It's a window in the the sophistication level capping has now entered and what models are going to have to deal with now. I blacked out all mentions of the site it was posted on. If there's some reason this shouldn't be posted feel free to delete it, but I thought it was something people would want to see if they hadn't.

 

[Lintilla]

I have no idea where these guys keep getting the idea that if a stream is public/unencrypted and as long as they're not making a profit that it's fair game, 100% legal for them to do what they please with. Accessible + free + public doesn't add up to public domain, and copyright protections still apply.

They are making profit though. So it is illegal. They have ads everywhere. Each time you download a file they get some money.

Yes, definitely. I believe that there are some of these guys who aren't making a profit and who are just sad and obsessive. There are lots of guys who are adding their own ads. And there are also guys who are hosting their files on sites that host their own ads. They're all different cases, but they're all illegal. The only difference is... who gets in how much trouble if I sue them?

No but anyone can record a public show. So does it make a differnece if you share it? Like share your DVD disc?

Yes, anyone can record something. IF they had access to it at the time, IF they bothered to record it at the time, IF and IF and IF. I understand what you're getting at, but you can't come back after the fact and say "because those airwaves passed through my house and I COULD have captured them I should be able to get a copy of this from elsewhere for free". The law doesn't support that sort of entitlement. It simply just doesn't. Yeah, there's kind of a disconnect at the moment between data and physical media that data can live on.

Data without a medium, at the moment, such as broadcast television, is not necessarily passing through your property to begin with. There's all sorts of strange rules that relate to what sorts of wavelengths of data and which data on those wavelengths is "yours", and which signals you can get into trouble for decrypting (satellite TV, for a "less" complicated example), but none of that matters here. Implying you had rights to begin with you still have only the rights extended to personal use.

There are plenty of grey areas in copyright law. Loaning your friend a DVD is legal, under the first sale doctrine. Copying a DVD to your hard drive, and then loaning the DVD is a grey area. (You are allowed to make a copy for archival purpose which is why it could be argued that is legal.) What is clearly illegal is posting a digital image in the cloud and inviting the world to make a copy of it.

There are certainly a LOT of grey areas in copyright law. First sale has come under fire recently in numerous forms. But under no circumstances is it cool to post a copyrighted file for others to download when you don't have a license. That's just not a thing. Still wondering where they get this thought that it's a-ok just because THEIR copy is legal. No one's even arguing about this. It's unquestionably illegal, and apart from those who want to abolish copyright altogether I can't think of anyone who would be on their side. Hey, I'll admit to piracy... And I can make as many excuses as I want... But I have never claimed I was doing anything legal. I kind of get that they may think what they're doing is "right" or "fair" (though I disagree), but claiming that they're not breaking the law is where facts come in, and then it really hurts my head. Cognitive dissonance? I don't even.

 

[LilyMarie]

I didn't see the original link posted in the OP, so this may be redundant, but I found a post on the site-to-not-be-named and took the liberty of screencapping it because I think a lot of people will be interested in seeing it. It's a window in the the sophistication level capping has now entered and what models are going to have to deal with now. I blacked out all mentions of the site it was posted on. If there's some reason this shouldn't be posted feel free to delete it, but I thought it was something people would want to see if they hadn't. [...]

Can anyone confirm this part?

 

[trotskyleon]

the fact that guests are able to view your cam effectively means DMCA does not apply, I guess is what he is getting at.

I dont know..

 

[LilyMarie]

I understand what he's saying. I want to know if it's true.

 

[HiGirlsRHot]

I didn't see the original link posted in the OP, so this may be redundant, but I found a post on the site-to-not-be-named and took the liberty of screencapping it because I think a lot of people will be interested in seeing it. It's a window in the the sophistication level capping has now entered and what models are going to have to deal with now. I blacked out all mentions of the site it was posted on. If there's some reason this shouldn't be posted feel free to delete it, but I thought it was something people would want to see if they hadn't. [...]

Can anyone confirm this part?

I can confirm that it smells like 100% genuine bullshit. From the 16 page DMCA summary on copyright.gov.

They make exception for network or ISP making copy of copyright material as part the operation of the network. A classical example is ISP caching frequently accessed information. But one of the criteria that ISP had to pass in order to receive an exemption is this.

Any intermediate copies must not ordinarily be accessible to anyone other than anticipated recipients, and must not be retained for longer
than reasonably necessary.

The intended recipients of the MFC stream, is limited to MFC members. These pirate site allows non MFC members to access MFC copyrighted material. They also archive these shows forever, which considering that a reasonable period for storing the streams is measured in minutes and therefore violates the law.

 

[trotskyleon]

The intended recipients of the MFC stream, is limited to MFC members. These pirate site allows non MFC members to access MFC copyrighted material. They also archive these shows forever, which considering that a reasonable period for storing the streams is measured in minutes and therefore violates the law.

In courts, one of the hardest things to prove is intention. In this case if the MFC stream was intended only for MFC members, then I would simply ask why wasnt the stream encrypted? Why are guests allowed to view? Why is it allowed for these guys to capture a whole bunch of streams?

"they" are not actually archiving anything. Its the filehosting that do that. You send DMCA request to the filehost and they take it down and then these guys reupload it.

Unless MFC put in some safeguards I cannot see how you can claim there has been a copyright infringment. The Rules explicity state that you cannot record or distribute any content on MFC - however the rules only apply to members of MFC.

Guests can become members for free by clicking Free Registration and making a free member account.

http://www.copyright.gov/docs/regstat060111.html -- discusses copyright and streaming

From their blog section...

What is the best & safest alternative to using BitTorrent?
It's simple, DDL (Direct Download Link) sites like [site name banned*7].ORG & File Hosts (aka Cyber Lockers) such as EasyBytez [external link].
The majority of these sites are operated from various remote countries of the world that do not require ISPs, hosting data-centers, web sites, & users to comply with US laws and policies such as the DMCA or CAS.

 

[emptiedglass]

Copyright applies to everyone, not just members or subscribers.
I'd classify these guys using guest accounts the same as someone who records an over-the-air television broadcast (using an antenna) and then shares it with countless others. Not having a subscriber account with the content distributor won't exempt you from the law.
Every day there are billions of unencrypted emails sent, and phone calls being made. To think that just because they're unencrypted you have the right to the contents of those communications, as well as to copy and redistribute them, is absurd.

 

[JerryBoBerry]

Copyright applies to everyone, not just members or subscribers.
I'd classify these guys using guest accounts the same as someone who records an over-the-air television broadcast (using an antenna) and then shares it with countless others. Not having a subscriber account with the content distributor won't exempt you from the law.
Every day there are billions of unencrypted emails sent, and phone calls being made. To think that just because they're unencrypted you have the right to the contents of those communications, as well as to copy and redistribute them, is absurd.

Plus let's be honest. The encrypted thing is meaningless. I imagine a good chunk of the videos aren't recorded by intercepting the stream anyway.

There's software that takes screen shots and syncs them up with audio from your sound card. Take more than 24 shots per second and voila you have a movie. No stream or html knowledge required.

Think about it, all those videos where the models logo has been cut out of the video? They didn't go back in and edit them. They just set up the screen cap size to not include it to begin with.

Even if mfc encrypted the streaming video it would change nothing.

 

[rexcode]

Can anyone confirm this part?

MFC does not allow users to download streams, therefore using a program to capture them is circumventing an access control, and is almost certainly a violation of the DMCA and is properly subject to takedown notices. Whether or not the stream uses encryption is irrelevant. Even if this is not the case (and I believe most courts would find that it is), it would be unlikely to be considered fair use and is still a copyright violation.

It's like in the thread where Beet Farmer showed up and the (probably fake) Dwight claimed that the part of the model agreement that gave a license to copy the video stream to MFC *and everybody* made it OK for anybody to copy the streams and redistribute them. Total nonsense! That clause in the agreement is intended to give MFC the right to redistribute the model's stream to MFC's viewers. The viewers, in turn, are bound by MFC's terms of service which expressly forbid such copying and redistribution.

Geez, these cappers wouldn't last a day in law school. Or in court.

 

[inkydoo]

Can anyone confirm this part?

MFC does not allow users to download streams, therefore using a program to capture them is circumventing an access control, and is almost certainly a violation of the DMCA and is properly subject to takedown notices. Whether or not the stream uses encryption is irrelevant. Even if this is not the case (and I believe most courts would find that it is), it would be unlikely to be considered fair use and is still a copyright violation.

It's like in the thread where Beet Farmer showed up and the (probably fake) Dwight claimed that the part of the model agreement that gave a license to copy the video stream to MFC *and everybody* made it OK for anybody to copy the streams and redistribute them. Total nonsense! That clause in the agreement is intended to give MFC the right to redistribute the model's stream to MFC's viewers. The viewers, in turn, are bound by MFC's terms of service which expressly forbid such copying and redistribution.

Geez, these cappers wouldn't last a day in law school. Or in court.

There's an even deeper misunderstanding of DMCA, particularly with regard to takedown notices. Places like this (or youtube or tumblr or facebook or....) that allow users to post content are only protected from contributory infringement as long as they respond in a reasonable time to DMCA takedown requests. And the only legal response they have is to take the material down or otherwise deny access to it. Then the individual who posted the content has legal recourse to protest the takedown by demonstrating that they do in fact have a legal right to do so (generally by being that actual copyright holder or having clear evidence that they are permitted (often licensed) to publish said content.

I point it out in part because this is the "good" side of takedown requirements that can also be abused by overzealous protectors of their information (e.g. Scientology or Mormonism, to pick on "religions"). In the case of this site, it's the law working as intended, putting the onus on the "publisher" (the individual in this case) to prove their actions are legal. Other times, it can be abused to take down the youtube video of your niece's birthday party, either because there's a TV or Radio on in the background, or because the song "Happy Birthday" is actually copyrighted (which is why restaurants make up their own silly birthday songs)

 

[TokenGesture]

I imagine a good chunk of the videos aren't recorded by intercepting the stream anyway.

Pretty much every video on that board and others like it are got by using software that detects, connects to, and captures the video streams. MFC could if they wanted thwart that somewhat but it would it have to be a constant ongoing process. The responses necessary to connect would need to be changed at very regular intervals. Unless MFC experience a big revenue slump and deem that piracy to be responsible, I suspect they feel their tech staff have better things to be doing.. All those pirated shows I'm guessing are water under the bridge to them. The tokens spent in those shows have been paid for and the money is in the bank.

 

[HiGirlsRHot]

TrostkyLeon I am curious what country are you from? You seem to have some unusual ideas about copyright laws, that I think maybe influenced by reading too many blog posting on pirate sites. Of course, File* blog is going to say their service is the best alternative to torrents. What do you expect them to say, "what you really should do is become a become a premium member on MFC and tip the girls for their shows". Now if the blogger has copy of his law degree diploma on the site, well then maybe I'd pay attention to their legal opinions.

It reminds me of all the people that post novella length essay on why the the income tax is unconstitutional. The judges laugh at them while the fine their butts and throw them jail, when they don't pay their income tax.

You shouldn't mistake the difficulties of enforcing the law, and MFC admittedly lax enforcement of any laws, with an activity being lawful. The US is certainly the most aggressive about enforcing copyright laws, but almost all countries have signed international treaties, such as the WIPO treaty which conforms to most of the provisions of DCMA. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_parties_to_international_copyright_agreements

 

[rexcode]

Unless MFC put in some safeguards I cannot see how you can claim there has been a copyright infringment. The Rules explicity state that you cannot record or distribute any content on MFC - however the rules only apply to members of MFC.

The website Terms of Service apply to all users of the site, whether someone has made an account or not. Anyone unwilling to follow them is not allowed to use the site *at all*. Similarly, whether or not there are "safeguards", copyright is copyright, and violating it is a copyright violation. It's not like trademark law, where the mark's owner has to make efforts to protect the mark or it might be declared invalid.

 

[trotskyleon]

Every day there are billions of unencrypted emails sent, and phone calls being made. To think that just because they're unencrypted you have the right to the contents of those communications, as well as to copy and redistribute them, is absurd.

Nope, but can everyone can access those emails? You have a password in place.You have some of security in place so that only the intended person has access to the material. Its not quite the same as MFC.

The website Terms of Service apply to all users of the site, whether someone has made an account or not. Anyone unwilling to follow them is not allowed to use the site *at all*. Similarly, whether or not there are "safeguards", copyright is copyright, and violating it is a copyright violation. It's not like trademark law, where the mark's owner has to make efforts to protect the mark or it might be declared invalid.

The TOS is specific to the website and is mostly a disclaimer that wont take any liability for anything that goes wrong due to their website really. All it means is we cannot sue or claim any damages against MFC for pretty much anything.

TrostkyLeon I am curious what country are you from? You seem to have some unusual ideas about copyright laws'

What does it matter what country i am from? Lol. I dont agree with anything they say. My view on copyright is simple, if you want others not to copy your things then you should put in place some safeguards to prevent them from doing so. Oh wait..Am I not allowed to have unusual ideas? lol.

MFC does not allow users to download streams, therefore using a program to capture them is circumventing an access control, and is almost certainly a violation of the DMCA and is properly subject to takedown notices. Whether or not the stream uses encryption is irrelevant. Even if this is not the case (and I believe most courts would find that it is), it would be unlikely to be considered fair use and is still a copyright violation.

You do realise..that by viewing a cam, we are automatically downloading the stream. There is no access control in place which is the point I was getting at. The Rules of the site (not the terms & conditions) state that "members" cannot record the shows and to become a "member" you need to sign up. Whenever you enter a site you are downloading a lot of stuff. Some stuff maybe harmful to your computer - which is why MFC have T&Cs - a disclaimer that they are not liable for any harm caused.

 

[HiGirlsRHot]

TrostkyLeon I am curious what country are you from? You seem to have some unusual ideas about copyright laws'

What does it matter what country i am from? Lol. I dont agree with anything they say. My view on copyright is simple, if you want others not to copy your things then you should put in place some safeguards to prevent them from doing so. Oh wait..Am I not allowed to have unusual ideas? lol.

.

So it is ok to go in a steal a TV from someones house because they left the door unlocked, or to copy the answers on test because the person didn't try and conceal their answers, or not report as income a cash you received because the government has no way of knowing you got it?.