Boycott to RLC following most recent access and watch policy changes

[StnCld316]

9 hours ago, costa049 said:

And what about the final customer, who ultimately is who pays and gets access to the content? Doesn't he have a word to say? It crosses the line of ethics. People need to know what they are getting and what they are investing in, and if their money will be worth that investment in the end.

There have been many users that have viewed free cams for years and never have any intention on ever purchasing a subscription, now they have to "pay to play" if they want to see anything.

[costa049]

12 hours ago, StnCld316 said:

There have been many users that have viewed free cams for years and never have any intention on ever purchasing a subscription, now they have to "pay to play" if they want to see anything.

Even if some users never intend to subscribe, the free previews aren’t just there for non-paying viewers, they serve as a critical tool for transparency. Without them, even potential subscribers are forced to commit without knowing what they're actually getting, which undermines trust and fair evaluation of the service, consequently ruining long term sustainability of the service. Unless they have other ways to keep it sustainable beyond the subs, which is the core of the service and its way of income, and that undermines transparency and credibility even more.

[FrankZabba]

1 hour ago, costa049 said:

Even if some users never intend to subscribe, the free previews aren’t just there for non-paying viewers, they serve as a critical tool for transparency. Without them, even potential subscribers are forced to commit without knowing what they're actually getting, which (1) undermines trust and fair evaluation of the service, consequently ruining long term sustainability of the service. (2) Unless they have other ways to keep it sustainable beyond the subs, which is the core of the service and its way of income, and that undermines transparency and credibility even more.

(1)  rlc in a nutshell

(2) i would venture to guess that the website of rlc is just a cover for the many other lucrative businesses they have.

[emoemily]

They have also dropped standard sub now, premium only, so im out, its sad but i guessed it would go this way when they added xlife. sad after subbing for years but i just cant support it. 

[FrankZabba]

1 minute ago, emoemily said:

They have also dropped standard sub now, premium only, so im out, its sad but i guessed it would go this way when they added xlife. sad after subbing for years but i just cant support it. 

i'm with you 100%

[costa049]

56 minutes ago, FrankZabba said:

(1)  rlc in a nutshell

(2) i would venture to guess that the website of rlc is just a cover for the many other lucrative businesses they have.

In case that's true, it looks like they are just using subscribers as a bait, which wouldn't be a surprise seeing by their choices in the latest years and how hard it is to reach their support and how hardly they account individual feedback. And that just reinforces concerns and should be more than enough reason to make us all raise our voices even more.

[FrankZabba]

7 minutes ago, costa049 said:

In case that's true, they are just using subscribers as a bait. And that just reinforces concerns and should be more than enough reason to make us all raise our voices even more.

i agree whole heartedly!  i raised my voice a year ago and truly believe the more that do the more attention rlc will pay to their subscribers.  even though rlc (the website) is a profit for them, i don't believe they could handle a mass exodus or even a semi mass exodus.

[costa049]

4 hours ago, emoemily said:

They have also dropped standard sub now, premium only, so im out, its sad but i guessed it would go this way when they added xlife. sad after subbing for years but i just cant support it.

Why should I pay for an RLC subscription that includes a bonus pack in XLIFE, which already has many of the houses featured in RLC? Moreover, the pack doesn't cover all houses and there is no other subscription plan in XLIFE that covers all houses in one plan, while RLC keeps the whole site with its (still) own exclusive houses locked behind a paywall. On top of that, on both plataforms they have added VAT over the prices and in RLC they have removed the more attractive deals, like the 7-day trial and even the standard subscription plan now. And still, RLC's lowest 30-day sub plan covers everything for the same price as the highest pack in XLIFE. All of this sounds like inconsistency in their approach and a way of trying to use us as a bait for something, and it's highly questionable.

 

[emoemily]

Yeah its starting to feel like a quick cash grab before they shut down and go under. just feels "off" now

[switch]

7 hours ago, costa049 said:

Even if some users never intend to subscribe, the free previews aren’t just there for non-paying viewers, they serve as a critical tool for transparency. Without them, even potential subscribers are forced to commit without knowing what they're actually getting, which undermines trust and fair evaluation of the service, consequently ruining long term sustainability of the service. Unless they have other ways to keep it sustainable beyond the subs, which is the core of the service and its way of income, and that undermines transparency and credibility even more.

RLC just forgot all the futur potential suscribers are behind the free cams also...

ok they have their addict fans base who will suscribe every months but we will see if it's enough or not now for them for run the site for years again with this blurry paywall,

if I was a newbie on RLC  never I would suscribe to a site in blind mode without any preview specially at that price,

the reason for why I am not a pay member for months now it's because the casting not really interest me exept one or two girls but I am not going to pay 54 euro for a month just for see one or two girls, very bad idea to have removed the 7 days deal

[StnCld316]

8 hours ago, costa049 said:

Even if some users never intend to subscribe, the free previews aren’t just there for non-paying viewers, they serve as a critical tool for transparency. Without them, even potential subscribers are forced to commit without knowing what they're actually getting, which undermines trust and fair evaluation of the service, consequently ruining long term sustainability of the service. Unless they have other ways to keep it sustainable beyond the subs, which is the core of the service and its way of income, and that undermines transparency and credibility even more.

I believe there is more to it than just the free cams. It may appear as though they are seeking a method to prevent pictures and videos from being posted. Restrict free users posting content would leave only subscribers to do so, and in that scenario, a subscriber would risk their RLC account if they ever posted a picture or video.

It likely to return at some point; it is just a matter of when.

[costa049]

5 hours ago, StnCld316 said:

I believe there is more to it than just the free cams. It may appear as though they are seeking a method to prevent pictures and videos from being posted. Restrict free users posting content would leave only subscribers to do so, and in that scenario, a subscriber would risk their RLC account if they ever posted a picture or video.

It likely to return at some point; it is just a matter of when.

You raise an interesting point. Restricting free users from posting content could indeed be part of the company's strategy to protect against unauthorized sharing, particularly when it come to videos. The potential risk to any subscriber who posts content under these conditions could be a way to limit that exposure, especially in light of DMCA concerns. However, it's important to clarify that limiting the ability to evaluate the service via free previews doesn't justify restricting content sharing and might even worsen the issue, especially since many of shared videos are already taken from paid cameras. If they are concerned about the distribution of copyrighted materials, that doesn't directly address the transparency issue of giving potential subscribers a chance to evaluate content before comitting. As for a return of that policy, it could be a matter of timing, but although the model may shift back at some point, these changes still damage trust in the long run, especially if users feel they're being forced into a subscription without fully understanding what they're paying for.

While restricting free user content might indeed reduce the risk of DMCA infringements by limiting who can post potentially problematic images or videos, it only worsens the issue even more and raises other concerns. Such restrictions seem designed to funnel participation exclusively to paid subscribers, who then risk losing their accounts if they inadvertently post copyrighted material. This not only curtails the community’s open engagement but also hinders transparency—new users lose the opportunity to evaluate the service without commitment.

Ultimately, if the intent is to mitigate legal risks, they could handle it by implementing a robust content moderation system rather than outright restricting free users from posting. For example, they could require all users—whether free or paid—to affirm that they have the rights to any content they upload, combined with an efficient, automated DMCA takedown process that complies with safe harbor provisions, like a record/screenshot-blocking system. This approach would address legal risks and copyright concerns while still allowing broader community participation.it comes at the cost of user trust and openness, and may not be the optimal long-term strategy. The way they are doing, although I don't believe it is the reason from what I and another user pointed, it comes at the cost of user trust and openness, and may not be the optimal long-term strategy.