Boycott to RLC following most recent access and watch policy changes

[switch]

many videos I can found on some sites are from the pay cams and some members knows very well how to remove the watermarks so I am not sure this is for this reason,

maybe they need more  suscriptions at the moment for pay all their power bills for their apartments for this winter and this is the solution they found for forcing the people to suscribe 🙂 but yes I don't think this situation will stay like this long time it's not viable in the long term, just need to be patient.

 

[StnCld316]

47 minutes ago, costa049 said:

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, it comes at the cost of user trust and openness, and may not be the optimal long-term strategy.

You can always send an email to RLC support to inquire why the free cams were purged, though it is uncertain if you will receive a reply, certain matters tend to fall on deaf ears at RLC.

[costa049]

6 minutes ago, StnCld316 said:

You can always send an email to RLC support to inquire why the free cams were purged, though it is uncertain if you will receive a reply, certain matters tend to fall on deaf ears at RLC.

Sorry, I've edited and added some other important points. But anyways, it is of because what I highlighted that it is even more important that we all raise a massively unified voice

[emoemily]

looks like they have allready reinstated the standard membership so thats good 

[costa049]

To who constantly gets amused and laughs at posts, the concerns here are genuine. The issues being pointed out aren't meant to be funny at all, let alone target of ridicule and/or discredit; It raises multiple concerns that must be taken into account very seriously: 

    1. Transparency & Trust: Removing free previews stops potential subscribers from knowing what they're really paying for. Without that upfront transparency and whith the inconsistency and questionable choices with the two sites, and also, moreover, in case they alledgedly have other hidden ways of income and use subscribers merely as bait, it can make more trust issues erode. When customers feel manipulated or deceived into subscribing through bait-and-switch tatics—it undermines the credibility of the entire brand. All of this not only affects customer loyalty, but can also to negative word-of-mouth, harming long-term growth and reputation, and leading to user trust over time.

    2. Community Engagement: Limiting free posting means the community loses a key way to share and evaluate content. Ironically, many shared videos already come from paid cameras, so this measure doesn’t solve the problem—it just shuts out open participation.

    3. Alternative Solutions: Instead of barring free users, a more balanced strategy would involve robust content moderation and an efficient, DMCA-compliant takedown process for everyone. This approach would address copyright concerns without sacrificing transparency or alienating potential subscribers.

It would be interesting to hear any constructive thoughts people might have on alternative ways to balance legal and ethical concerns with open community participation, so that our voices can be raised and heard and take effect for the benefit of everyone.

 

[FrankZabba]

42 minutes ago, costa049 said:

To who gets constantly amused and laughs at posts, the concerns here are genuine. The issues being pointed out aren't meant to be funny at all, let alone target of ridicule and/or discredit; It raises multiple concerns that must be taken into account very seriously: 

    1. Transparency & Trust: Removing free previews stops potential subscribers from knowing what they're really paying for. Without that upfront transparency and whith the inconsistency and questionable choices with the two sites, and also, moreover, in case they alledgedly have other hidden ways of income and use subscribers merely as bait, it can make more trust issues erode. When customers feel manipulated or deceived into subscribing through bait-and-switch tatics—it undermines the credibility of the entire brand. All of this not only affects customer loyalty, but can also to negative word-of-mouth, harming long-term growth and reputation, and leading to user trust over time.

    2. Community Engagement: Limiting free posting means the community loses a key way to share and evaluate content. Ironically, many shared videos already come from paid cameras, so this measure doesn’t solve the problem—it just shuts out open participation.

    3. Alternative Solutions: Instead of barring free users, a more balanced strategy would involve robust content moderation and an efficient, DMCA-compliant takedown process for everyone. This approach would address copyright concerns without sacrificing transparency or alienating potential subscribers.

It would be interesting to hear any constructive thoughts people might have on alternative ways to balance legal and ethical concerns with open community participation, so that our voices can be raised and heard and take effect for the benefit of everyone.

i support your effort all the way!  the problem is the type of people you are dealing with on this forum.  they type of people that will let rlc walk all over them with their actions.  it will be a long tough road ahead!  people that will talk badly of jessi, yet will do nothing about it.  i read that kind of stuff on this forum everyday.  it's the kind of people that would take their car in for a fresh paint job and when they go to pick it up the car is a different color.  they ask why and are told it's the same color.  the painter explains that it's freshly painted and this is why it appears to be a different color.  the customer, instead of making the painter change the color just accepts it and moves on.  most of the people on this forum are exactly the same way!  how many times do you read about the tenants going off cam into the b4 garage?  i can promise you it's a boat load of times yet nothing is ever done about.  if it really bothered the people on this forum they would complain to rlc and get them to put a lock on the door to the garage as well as the rollup door outside.  there are numerous situations where rlc walks all over their viewers but the viewers just don't care.  good luck in your quest to make rlc sit up and take notice!