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

[trotskyleon]

No.

But if you leave the tv on the side of a busy road. Can you blame someone for stopping by and picking it up?

Even with your example. How do you prove that you didnt leave the door unlocked for someone to come pick up the TV? Unless you have sign saying do not enter?

 

[trotskyleon]

To expand on it further:

- whose fault is it leaving the door open?
- whose tv is it?
- whose loses out?
- what is probability of finding the culprit?

You can say its illegal and all that. But in the end you are losing out the most. So the copyright is almost useless unless you have safeguards in place. That is problem that lot of these big media distributors have now. They know that once they have safegaurds in place their property will be protected but they also it comes at the prices of less marketing, more hassle for the customer and that there is a cost involved.

So for them its weigh up of implementing a safeguard without pissing off customers - in the end maximising profit - its never really about protecting content.

 

[Sevrin]

 

[BobbyB]

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.

In my opinion there are 2 sides to this recorded MFC sessions:
1) there is the additional exposure of the models without any location restriction applied by MFC, but Proxy server and VPN can get around that anyway
2) the more interesting aspect is that these websites are actually good for MFC and the models...
The main selling point of MFC is not porn clips, you can get them in abundance for free on plenty of Tubes sites, the main product is the "live" model experience, and that you don't have with a videofile...
I think the most money girls make on MFC is from members who return to the room and over time built up a kind of relation and then tip sometimes huge amount on a regular base. MFC makes it money from a cut of the tips and not buy selling video clips.

So you can view the pirated clips as a kind of free advertising to lure guys to MFC and see the model live and maybe start tipping and so increasing MFC revenue.....

As often it really depends how you view things, a shift of angle sometimes povides a different result

 

[CallMeWilliam]

Can anyone confirm this part?

IANAL but have dealt with my fair share of DMCA take down notices (sending) in the past and am saying this based on my conversations with a US lawyer.

This quote is somewhat interesting because there are two parts to it, one that is true and one that is false.

The true part (and the one that is often missed) is that models sending DMCA take-down notices directly are not covered under the DMCA; ISP's and or site owners could in fact ignore the request as they (the models) are not the rightful copyright holders of the content. Only MFC can send the proper notice or the model has been given the permission to act in behalf of MFC (are models given this permission?) with regards to copyright infringement issues (i.e. PR companies who handle a companies image are often given this responsibility). The only thing that a modal can do is if the site has a picture of her being displayed along with the content that she took herself, could be a reason for the notification for the picture only.

The false part is the delivery method or streaming part that is irrelevant. They are still using the content without the permission of the original copyright holder regardless if it is streaming / public / private or not.

My :twocents-02cents:

 

[LilyMarie]

The true part (and the one that is often missed) is that models sending DMCA take-down notices directly are not covered under the DMCA; ISP's and or site owners could in fact ignore the request as they (the models) are not the rightful copyright holders of the content. Only MFC can send the proper notice or the model has been given the permission to act in behalf of MFC (are models given this permission?) with regards to copyright infringement issues (i.e. PR companies who handle a companies image are often given this responsibility). The only thing that a modal can do is if the site has a picture of her being displayed along with the content that she took herself, could be a reason for the notification for the picture only.

The false part is the delivery method or streaming part that is irrelevant. They are still using the content without the permission of the original copyright holder regardless if it is streaming / public / private or not.

My :twocents-02cents:

So as long as we don't try sending DMCAs on our own, but instead ask MFC to do this for you, we're fine, right?
Because that's what I always do, since I'm a) aware that I don't hold the copyright over my shows on MFC, and b) not silly enough to send my own personal info to a filehosting site, which they might then give to FG or KK (it's happened before). :?

In my opinion there are 2 sides to this recorded MFC sessions:
1) there is the additional exposure of the models without any location restriction applied by MFC, but Proxy server and VPN can get around that anyway
2) the more interesting aspect is that these websites are actually good for MFC and the models...
The main selling point of MFC is not porn clips, you can get them in abundance for free on plenty of Tubes sites, the main product is the "live" model experience, and that you don't have with a videofile...
I think the most money girls make on MFC is from members who return to the room and over time built up a kind of relation and then tip sometimes huge amount on a regular base. MFC makes it money from a cut of the tips and not buy selling video clips.

So you can view the pirated clips as a kind of free advertising to lure guys to MFC and see the model live and maybe start tipping and so increasing MFC revenue.....

As often it really depends how you view things, a shift of angle sometimes povides a different result

I wish people would stop saying caps were useful for models because they give them exposure/"free advertising".
The people who visit FG and sites like it are explicitly against the notion of tipping models, or paying them by the minute. They either just want to use them as free fap material and don't waste a second thought on the models, or they directly disrespect, hate or envy them. I'm not going to go into the reasons I think they have, but they are definitely against paying.
They're not going to download a random girl's video, think "hm, she's nice, I should become a premium member and tip her in the future". Maybe this happens when someone finds a girl on xhamster or youporn. But when you're the type of... person who goes to a site dedicated to pirated shows, you already know which girl you're looking for (so she doesn't get additional exposure, because you already know her) and you know you're not willing to pay her.
These people don't care for interaction either, they just want to get off for free.

 

[BobbyB]

The true part (and the one that is often missed) is that models sending DMCA take-down notices directly are not covered under the DMCA; ISP's and or site owners could in fact ignore the request as they (the models) are not the rightful copyright holders of the content. Only MFC can send the proper notice or the model has been given the permission to act in behalf of MFC (are models given this permission?) with regards to copyright infringement issues (i.e. PR companies who handle a companies image are often given this responsibility). The only thing that a modal can do is if the site has a picture of her being displayed along with the content that she took herself, could be a reason for the notification for the picture only.

The false part is the delivery method or streaming part that is irrelevant. They are still using the content without the permission of the original copyright holder regardless if it is streaming / public / private or not.

My :twocents-02cents:

So as long as we don't try sending DMCAs on our own, but instead ask MFC to do this for you, we're fine, right?
Because that's what I always do, since I'm a) aware that I don't hold the copyright over my shows on MFC, and b) not silly enough to send my own personal info to a filehosting site, which they might then give to FG or KK (it's happened before). :?

In my opinion there are 2 sides to this recorded MFC sessions:
1) there is the additional exposure of the models without any location restriction applied by MFC, but Proxy server and VPN can get around that anyway
2) the more interesting aspect is that these websites are actually good for MFC and the models...
The main selling point of MFC is not porn clips, you can get them in abundance for free on plenty of Tubes sites, the main product is the "live" model experience, and that you don't have with a videofile...
I think the most money girls make on MFC is from members who return to the room and over time built up a kind of relation and then tip sometimes huge amount on a regular base. MFC makes it money from a cut of the tips and not buy selling video clips.

So you can view the pirated clips as a kind of free advertising to lure guys to MFC and see the model live and maybe start tipping and so increasing MFC revenue.....

As often it really depends how you view things, a shift of angle sometimes povides a different result

I wish people would stop saying caps were useful for models because they give them exposure/"free advertising".
The people who visit FG and sites like it are explicitly against the notion of tipping models, or paying them by the minute. They either just want to use them as free fap material and don't waste a second thought on the models, or they directly disrespect, hate or envy them. I'm not going to go into the reasons I think they have, but they are definitely against paying.
They're not going to download a random girl's video, think "hm, she's nice, I should become a premium member and tip her in the future". Maybe this happens when someone finds a girl on xhamster or youporn. But when you're the type of... person who goes to a site dedicated to pirated shows, you already know which girl you're looking for (so she doesn't get additional exposure, because you already know her) and you know you're not willing to pay her.
These people don't care for interaction either, they just want to get off for free.

Thanks for you comments....
Of course I cannot prove anything, but I see 2 kind of basic scenarios...
1) A guy goes to MFC as a guest checks the homepage for a model he likes and then types the name into google and maybe gets a result with a link to a pirated video, I fully agree there is little chance to get 1 cent out of this type of person....

2) A guy finds a vid on a tube or whatever side of a MFC model with a reference to MFC, visits her room and maybe starts tipping to experience her live, ( if he stays a guest he has the live experience too but not 1 cent for the model doing the public show )
As I said before MFC is about the live element, in a private I can ask a girl to provide a custom show to me, no such option with a video....

But maybe 2 is the very rare exception, to be honest I have no idea ..

 

[HiGirlsRHot]

I wish people would stop saying caps were useful for models because they give them exposure/"free advertising".
The people who visit FG and sites like it are explicitly against the notion of tipping models, or paying them by the minute. They either just want to use them as free fap material and don't waste a second thought on the models, or they directly disrespect, hate or envy them. I'm not going to go into the reasons I think they have, but they are definitely against paying.
They're not going to download a random girl's video, think "hm, she's nice, I should become a premium member and tip her in the future". Maybe this happens when someone finds a girl on xhamster or youporn. But when you're the type of... person who goes to a site dedicated to pirated shows, you already know which girl you're looking for (so she doesn't get additional exposure, because you already know her) and you know you're not willing to pay her.
These people don't care for interaction either, they just want to get off for free.

I agree and I think the situation is even worse because I think it has the potential to turn the somewhat reluctant tippers into non or lower tippers.
Most people have situational ethics. I've bought pot maybe twice in my life, partly because it is illegal, but if someone offers me bong hit, I'll often take it. Likewise when I was young and poor, I was a lot more inclined to pirate stuff than I am now. If pirating videos, games, porn etc required hours of work instead of just a Google search people would do less of it. If Apple stopped selling individual songs for $.99 and went back to selling albums for $15 we'd see a spike in pirated music.

Lots of model almost never get naked/do a cumshow/squirt/anal etc. in public reserving that activity for group/private or video. But the key phrase is "almost never" meaning that sometimes they do. If all of their shows are capped and easily accessible, than I can easily envision this lounge conversation.

Lounge1 SexKitty is so hot I wish she did anal
Lounge2 She does in private
Lounge1 Really, when I get paid I'm going to take her private
Lounge3 Before she was a top model she did lots of anal shows as IluvAnal, they are all archived on FG...

Lounge1 rushes off and downloads ILuvAnal past shows. He feels kind of bad, not taking her private but privates are so damned expensive..

My guess is for plenty of premium who don't/can't buy many tokens these caps will be a attractive alternative to buying videos and such from the models.

 

[CallMeWilliam]

The true part (and the one that is often missed) is that models sending DMCA take-down notices directly are not covered under the DMCA; ISP's and or site owners could in fact ignore the request as they (the models) are not the rightful copyright holders of the content. Only MFC can send the proper notice or the model has been given the permission to act in behalf of MFC (are models given this permission?) with regards to copyright infringement issues (i.e. PR companies who handle a companies image are often given this responsibility). The only thing that a modal can do is if the site has a picture of her being displayed along with the content that she took herself, could be a reason for the notification for the picture only.

The false part is the delivery method or streaming part that is irrelevant. They are still using the content without the permission of the original copyright holder regardless if it is streaming / public / private or not.

My :twocents-02cents:

So as long as we don't try sending DMCAs on our own, but instead ask MFC to do this for you, we're fine, right?
Because that's what I always do, since I'm a) aware that I don't hold the copyright over my shows on MFC, and b) not silly enough to send my own personal info to a filehosting site, which they might then give to FG or KK (it's happened before). :?

Yes, MFC "should" contact the DMCA agent for the ISP where the forum/site/whatever is being hosted with the take-down notice.

 

[Trav]

The legality of DMCA takedown requests seems moot to me, at least when it comes to what this particular post has been discussing. The system that's being used on this site, according to the post I screencapped, automatically picks up files that have been deleted, reuploads, and reposts them. It doesn't really matter who's sending the DMCA notices, the files are just gonna pop back up indefinitely.

 

[HiGirlsRHot]

The legality of DMCA takedown requests seems moot to me, at least when it comes to what this particular post has been discussing. The system that's being used on this site, according to the post I screencapped, automatically picks up files that have been deleted, reuploads, and reposts them. It doesn't really matter who's sending the DMCA notices, the files are just gonna pop back up indefinitely.

Well yes until the "virtual private cloud hosted on three continents", I guess this is the equivalent of 14" cock in pirate terms, gets raided and shut down.

Or perhaps more likely the file hosting sites decide to cut off upload privileges for his accounts.

 

[Trav]

The legality of DMCA takedown requests seems moot to me, at least when it comes to what this particular post has been discussing. The system that's being used on this site, according to the post I screencapped, automatically picks up files that have been deleted, reuploads, and reposts them. It doesn't really matter who's sending the DMCA notices, the files are just gonna pop back up indefinitely.

Well yes until the "virtual private cloud hosted on three continents", I guess this is the equivalent of 14" cock in pirate terms, gets raided and shut down.

Or perhaps more likely the file hosting sites decide to cut off upload privileges for his accounts.

Whatever system he's using, whether it's what he says or not, he's still able to post multiple-hundred auto-capped show megaposts basically daily, with little to no recourse, and has been doing so for months. Until it gets shut down, if it does, and assuming at that point he doesn't just move to a new filehost... I'd say this seems like the new reality.

 

[HiGirlsRHot]

Whatever system he's using, whether it's what he says or not, he's still able to post multiple-hundred auto-capped show megaposts basically daily, with little to no recourse, and has been doing so for months. Until it gets shut down, if it does, and assuming at that point he doesn't just move to a new filehost... I'd say this seems like the new reality.

You are 100% correct it is the new reality, and it isn't likely change anytime soon. Not sure what if anything camgirls could do differently. About the only thing I could suggest is if there are things you don't want to do in public, for business or personal reasons, then be really disciplined about never doing them in public no matter how much the room begs.

 

[Anonymous]

I wish people would stop saying caps were useful for models because they give them exposure/"free advertising".
The people who visit FG and sites like it are explicitly against the notion of tipping models, or paying them by the minute. They either just want to use them as free fap material and don't waste a second thought on the models, or they directly disrespect, hate or envy them. I'm not going to go into the reasons I think they have, but they are definitely against paying.
They're not going to download a random girl's video, think "hm, she's nice, I should become a premium member and tip her in the future". Maybe this happens when someone finds a girl on xhamster or youporn. But when you're the type of... person who goes to a site dedicated to pirated shows, you already know which girl you're looking for (so she doesn't get additional exposure, because you already know her) and you know you're not willing to pay her.
These people don't care for interaction either, they just want to get off for free.

Word.

I'm sick of reading that too, and every time we have this conversation we get new members popping up on here trying to defend their actions, and acting like they're doing a good deed for the models...lol.

 

[LilyMarie]

the "virtual private cloud hosted on three continents", I guess this is the equivalent of 14" cock in pirate terms,

 

[nzhere]

MFC I think uses about 300MB to 2 GB per hour trafficwise depending on how many cams the user has open.

I say just eject for 24 hours any i.p that is logged in as guest or basic that hasn't typed anything that has done this amount of traffic.

a kind of zero interaction filter

 

[LaceyRoyce]

No.

But if you leave the tv on the side of a busy road. Can you blame someone for stopping by and picking it up?

Even with your example. How do you prove that you didnt leave the door unlocked for someone to come pick up the TV? Unless you have sign saying do not enter?

I hesitate to respond to this idiocy. But for the sake of ... hoping I'll get through.

If I walk down in the lingerie, do we blame me or the guy that rapes me?


Doing something that might not be SMART does not mean we absolve the person committing the crime. Ever. It's just not logical. Someone being DUMB does not make it OK to steal, rob, rape, or do anything else nasty.

You are required to be responsible for yourself and your own actions. YOU and YOU alone are responsible for them. The dumb person who leaves a TV on the side of the road, the door open to their house, DOES NOTHING TO FORCE YOU to rob them. Therefore, YOU ARE TO BLAME.

This is really. fucking. basic.

 

[JerryBoBerry]

No.

But if you leave the tv on the side of a busy road. Can you blame someone for stopping by and picking it up?

Even with your example. How do you prove that you didnt leave the door unlocked for someone to come pick up the TV? Unless you have sign saying do not enter?

I hesitate to respond to this idiocy. But for the sake of ... hoping I'll get through.

If I walk down in the lingerie, do we blame me or the guy that rapes me?


Doing something that might not be SMART does not mean we absolve the person committing the crime. Ever. It's just not logical. Someone being DUMB does not make it OK to steal, rob, rape, or do anything else nasty.

You are required to be responsible for yourself and your own actions. YOU and YOU alone are responsible for them. The dumb person who leaves a TV on the side of the road, the door open to their house, DOES NOTHING TO FORCE YOU to rob them. Therefore, YOU ARE TO BLAME.

This is really. fucking. basic.

A-Fucking-Men!
There are whole areas in this country where people don't lock house and car doors. That doesn't make it their fault if they are robbed.

 

[JoleneBrody]

No.

But if you leave the tv on the side of a busy road. Can you blame someone for stopping by and picking it up?

Even with your example. How do you prove that you didnt leave the door unlocked for someone to come pick up the TV? Unless you have sign saying do not enter?

I hesitate to respond to this idiocy. But for the sake of ... hoping I'll get through.

If I walk down in the lingerie, do we blame me or the guy that rapes me?


Doing something that might not be SMART does not mean we absolve the person committing the crime. Ever. It's just not logical. Someone being DUMB does not make it OK to steal, rob, rape, or do anything else nasty.

You are required to be responsible for yourself and your own actions. YOU and YOU alone are responsible for them. The dumb person who leaves a TV on the side of the road, the door open to their house, DOES NOTHING TO FORCE YOU to rob them. Therefore, YOU ARE TO BLAME.

This is really. fucking. basic.

Word.
Also, the T.V analogy doesn't work because leaving free old furniture on the side of the road is extremely common. It's like the national symbol for "free, please take." It WOULD be stupid to leave a T.V on the side of the road if you didn't want it taken, because that's what leaving furniture on the side of the road MEANS!
The people who record and redistribute MFC feeds are completely aware that what they do is illegal. Those who are convinced it's not know it's at least frowned upon and are even more spiteful and mean in their process.

 

[LaceyRoyce]

No.

But if you leave the tv on the side of a busy road. Can you blame someone for stopping by and picking it up?

Even with your example. How do you prove that you didnt leave the door unlocked for someone to come pick up the TV? Unless you have sign saying do not enter?

I hesitate to respond to this idiocy. But for the sake of ... hoping I'll get through.

If I walk down in the lingerie, do we blame me or the guy that rapes me?


Doing something that might not be SMART does not mean we absolve the person committing the crime. Ever. It's just not logical. Someone being DUMB does not make it OK to steal, rob, rape, or do anything else nasty.

You are required to be responsible for yourself and your own actions. YOU and YOU alone are responsible for them. The dumb person who leaves a TV on the side of the road, the door open to their house, DOES NOTHING TO FORCE YOU to rob them. Therefore, YOU ARE TO BLAME.

This is really. fucking. basic.

Word.
Also, the T.V analogy doesn't work because leaving free old furniture on the side of the road is extremely common. It's like the national symbol for "free, please take." It WOULD be stupid to leave a T.V on the side of the road if you didn't want it taken, because that's what leaving furniture on the side of the road MEANS!
The people who record and redistribute MFC feeds are completely aware that what they do is illegal. Those who are convinced it's not know it's at least frowned upon and are even more spiteful and mean in their process.

well yeah - side of the road TV is not really robbery...

But lets say a laptop in full view in an unlocked car.



Btw - I mean tto say "walk down the road in lingerie" but i screwed it up and too late to edit.

 

[JoleneBrody]

No.

But if you leave the tv on the side of a busy road. Can you blame someone for stopping by and picking it up?

Even with your example. How do you prove that you didnt leave the door unlocked for someone to come pick up the TV? Unless you have sign saying do not enter?

I hesitate to respond to this idiocy. But for the sake of ... hoping I'll get through.

If I walk down in the lingerie, do we blame me or the guy that rapes me?


Doing something that might not be SMART does not mean we absolve the person committing the crime. Ever. It's just not logical. Someone being DUMB does not make it OK to steal, rob, rape, or do anything else nasty.

You are required to be responsible for yourself and your own actions. YOU and YOU alone are responsible for them. The dumb person who leaves a TV on the side of the road, the door open to their house, DOES NOTHING TO FORCE YOU to rob them. Therefore, YOU ARE TO BLAME.

This is really. fucking. basic.

Word.
Also, the T.V analogy doesn't work because leaving free old furniture on the side of the road is extremely common. It's like the national symbol for "free, please take." It WOULD be stupid to leave a T.V on the side of the road if you didn't want it taken, because that's what leaving furniture on the side of the road MEANS!
The people who record and redistribute MFC feeds are completely aware that what they do is illegal. Those who are convinced it's not know it's at least frowned upon and are even more spiteful and mean in their process.

well yeah - side of the road TV is not really robbery...

But lets say a laptop in full view in an unlocked car.



Btw - I mean tto say "walk down the road in lingerie" but i screwed it up and too late to edit.

Oops sorry! My post was mainly aimed at Trot for being stupid and making no sense.

 

[SaffronBurke]

No.

But if you leave the tv on the side of a busy road. Can you blame someone for stopping by and picking it up?

Even with your example. How do you prove that you didnt leave the door unlocked for someone to come pick up the TV? Unless you have sign saying do not enter?

I hesitate to respond to this idiocy. But for the sake of ... hoping I'll get through.

If I walk down in the lingerie, do we blame me or the guy that rapes me?


Doing something that might not be SMART does not mean we absolve the person committing the crime. Ever. It's just not logical. Someone being DUMB does not make it OK to steal, rob, rape, or do anything else nasty.

You are required to be responsible for yourself and your own actions. YOU and YOU alone are responsible for them. The dumb person who leaves a TV on the side of the road, the door open to their house, DOES NOTHING TO FORCE YOU to rob them. Therefore, YOU ARE TO BLAME.

This is really. fucking. basic.

I wish I could thank this more than once!

I see so much victim-blaming going on in multiple situations, and it's so wrong! If someone can't resist their criminal urges, it's their fault, never ever the victim's! I'm so glad you mentioned this, because it's one of my biggest pet peeves.



And to the people suggesting that MFC/models should encrypt the stream:
Really? Because there's no possible way to get around encryption, just like having a password means that nobody can hack your email right? It's the same as the locked door - does locking your door stop someone from robbing you? No. Hell, someone once broke the window of my dad's UNLOCKED car to steal his stereo, and the faceplate was in his back pocket!

 

[Nordling]

And anything a member can see on their monitor can be capped, whether the stream is encrypted or not.

 

[trotskyleon]

No.

But if you leave the tv on the side of a busy road. Can you blame someone for stopping by and picking it up?

Even with your example. How do you prove that you didnt leave the door unlocked for someone to come pick up the TV? Unless you have sign saying do not enter?

I hesitate to respond to this idiocy. But for the sake of ... hoping I'll get through.

If I walk down in the lingerie, do we blame me or the guy that rapes me?


Doing something that might not be SMART does not mean we absolve the person committing the crime. Ever. It's just not logical. Someone being DUMB does not make it OK to steal, rob, rape, or do anything else nasty.

You are required to be responsible for yourself and your own actions. YOU and YOU alone are responsible for them. The dumb person who leaves a TV on the side of the road, the door open to their house, DOES NOTHING TO FORCE YOU to rob them. Therefore, YOU ARE TO BLAME.

This is really. fucking. basic.

It has nothing to do with whose fault it is but rather who gets hurt in the end. Blame whoever you want. But in the end you are the one who loses out.

Bad things happen sadly.

 

[AmberCutie]

^^ absolutely zero sense made.

 

[JerryBoBerry]

^^ absolutely zero sense made.

This is the guy who wanted to start a web page to track models movements so people could meet them out at bars and try to hook up. Has anything he's said ever made sense?

 

[trotskyleon]

And to the people suggesting that MFC/models should encrypt the stream:
Really? Because there's no possible way to get around encryption, just like having a password means that nobody can hack your email right? It's the same as the locked door - does locking your door stop someone from robbing you? No. Hell, someone once broke the window of my dad's UNLOCKED car to steal his stereo, and the faceplate was in his back pocket!

So fuck it! Lets get rid of passwords for emails. Get rid of personal identification numbers and hey why bother signing for something? :lol:

By encrypting the stream or restricting access you are making it more difficult for them to capture it. Which means they are less likely to copy and share it. It doesn't guarantee anything, but that is life.

By at least having lock, you are making it a little more difficult so if a robber comes around..instead of stealing from ur car, they can steal it from another car because its easier.

 

[Falke]

I wish people would stop saying caps were useful for models because they give them exposure/"free advertising".
The people who visit FG and sites like it are explicitly against the notion of tipping models, or paying them by the minute. They either just want to use them as free fap material and don't waste a second thought on the models, or they directly disrespect, hate or envy them. I'm not going to go into the reasons I think they have, but they are definitely against paying.
They're not going to download a random girl's video, think "hm, she's nice, I should become a premium member and tip her in the future". Maybe this happens when someone finds a girl on xhamster or youporn. But when you're the type of... person who goes to a site dedicated to pirated shows, you already know which girl you're looking for (so she doesn't get additional exposure, because you already know her) and you know you're not willing to pay her.
These people don't care for interaction either, they just want to get off for free.

I agree that caps really don't or only very rarely work as "free advertising" (nor is it strictly speaking "free," because the models and site likely see some difficult-to-quantify revenue loss from the caps).

It does seem to me, however, that there is an additional distinction between types of people watching the caps. The vast majority are probably freeloaders in the same sense that MFC generally suffers from the problem of people wanting a show for free. Based on a PM conversation I once had with an MFC member who does cap and download them (hand to God, this is not an "asking for a friend" way of making the point in third person -- I really did have a conversation) I do think that there is a second group of cappers and downloaders who want to see shows that they have missed. In this case, the member was a tipper in that model's room, but he had to leave for work before the show was over. I don't cap or download caps, but I can understand that mindset in which recording a show is like recording something from TV. I am not saying that analogy really holds true, but I see how people convince themselves of that, particularly for public shows.

The distinction might seem like an academic point, but couldn't MFC and the models recoup some of the losses by targeting this second group? I know I would be willing to pay to see past shows, if MFC had a mechanism for storing old shows and allowing members to stream them for some price in tokens. Ideally, models could opt in for the recordings (i.e. not mandatory or automatic, but a box to check when setting up the chat room), and the system would also help with the regional blocks, because it would still be done through the site. Maybe the amount of data involved would make such a thing unmanageable or unprofitable for MFC, but I wonder if something like that wouldn't help to ameliorate the problem. Or maybe most of the people watching caps really are freeloaders and I am just really naive...

 

[Nordling]

I don't think the objection to capping is referring to the scenario you're suggesting (personal use because you suddenly had an attack of diarrhea during a show, e.g.) The objection is mainly against people who cap models' streams and upload them to "capper sites" so they'll be free to all the freeloaders in the universe.

 

[Anonymous]

I don't think the objection to capping is referring to the scenario you're suggesting (personal use because you suddenly had an attack of diarrhea during a show, e.g.) The objection is mainly against people who cap models' streams and upload them to "capper sites" so they'll be free to all the freeloaders in the universe.