Log in

View Full Version : AVOID MYFREECAMS and other online camscam and scam sites.



Pages : 1 [2]

twigs
07-03-2011, 08:37 PM
::) Okay, that one obviously went over your head. It's obvious you're not a camgirl. We have several terms for when a man with zero real life experience comes in and tells us they know everything about our jobs and we're all morons, and trust me, none of them are positive.

That just goes no where. I've never said you are all morons or that I know everything. I only know what I need to. Never put words in another's mouth if you have no true words of your own.

twigs
07-03-2011, 08:42 PM
I suspect that promotion is the main advantage to going with a big site. It is hard to promote yourself on your own, especially for someone who has never done it before.

Still, it is mind-boggling how some of these few really hot women are apparently making basically the same amount of money as a bunch of rejects.


Promotions is key. I see a lot who over post on the social nets and chain post using things like Blip but there are always big differences in what is posted by those who get more attention.

It is kind of sad that these sites let anyone think they can cam, so they sign the contract and do it for hours on end making nothing. Some say it makes a good test but that is one hell of a "test" when they end up signing off this insane contract just to get on the site.

What cam sites do you like?

sananeko
07-03-2011, 09:59 PM
I just have one view for you to try to look through. You are trying to argue with members that have been here for years and maybe have worked on that site and you are not even in the three digits for posts telling them what is wrong and the right way to do it. Unless you have been A: in front of a cam and B: have lost money from it.. You really have no say.. You are trying to fight something that already has multiple threads about it, if you look and read all of them.. they get the same replies with the same new member trying to do the same thing you're doing.. and the end result will either be you will keep running in circles until you bite your tail or get banned for being so rude to all the long-time members.

To shorten this before it gets any longer.. I say apologize to them and wait til your post number is up from polite questions and answers, mostly in the blue section. In the world, coming in and barking your views will mostly get you ignored and maybe some rude responses. So learn to have people warm up to you before you start stating these views so aggressively.

Djoser
07-03-2011, 10:52 PM
No he wasn't, it just looked like it, but that part is gone now.

I want to close this thread because I am too tired to clean it up any miore. I think the guy has a point. But Twigs you have come on so strong with this as a new member, and so hard on MFC in particular, it's hurting your credibility. I'm not saying you don't have a point, because I think you do. But your point is lost in this thread for most reading it now, sorry to say.

I don't know how much of a scam MFC is, but I am not crazy about it, or some of the other sites (invariably owned by men and clearly exploitative towards the models) especially the way the studios are set up in Eastern Europe. It's hard enough for women in the USA to get set up on their own--over there it's nearly impossible.

I don't like any of the camsites, to tell you the truth. I did meet some pretty cool models though and have kept in touch with two of them. One of them is a female DJ with some good music, too.

KS_Stevia
07-04-2011, 12:05 AM
Without getting to specific as i know it would just insight someone to say I am trying to sell sites or compete, Setting up one's own cam site, web development, an LLC of their own to manage it under, the software, a tech to hook up paysite, domain with FTP package and equipment would run a person hardly $900, not thousands. That was true maybe five or more years ago. This is 2011.

Yes, I also know how the internets work. So do lots of girls. Its not that expensive to start up a site and web presence, but it takes time and manipulation of SEO, plus build up of regular clientele to be successful. In a strip club, girl walks in and voila, customers are there waiting for girls. Same w cam sites. Going independent is basically the same as opening your own one girl strip club and hoping you'll get enough money to be profitable before you take a few weeks and hundreds/thousands more dollars spent on advertising. This is so basic, why do I need to break this down?


Not all strip clubs are "total bullshit" either.

What does this mean?

Like I said, I don't doubt your cause is good, or that the wheel should be re-invented in the treatment of women in the adult industry. But something about your posts and mission is just not adding up;

Brandi_Lynn
07-04-2011, 08:15 AM
There are actually websites, in this country that are paying models as little as $80.00 for entire photo sets of fully nude work.
Suicide Girls is actually STILL having models turn over entire sets of photo nudes FOR FREE, paying them nothing and selling the sets online while the models think it is their "audition".




This is inaccurate. I model for this site. While I will say the contract is not one of the most profitable for myself, but I have gotten paid for my sets as the contract stated. My sets were not free or for $80.00 I can tell you that. The contract has also stated everything accordingly that has transpired while modeling for them -I did have a lawyer (an xxx lawyer, specifically) that looked through my contract as well without any issue.

I think that just about any contract in the adult industry is alil shitty when analyzing them all... but one hurdle at a time.

twigs
07-04-2011, 09:43 AM
This is inaccurate. I model for this site. While I will say the contract is not one of the most profitable for myself, but I have gotten paid for my sets as the contract stated. My sets were not free or for $80.00 I can tell you that. The contract has also stated everything accordingly that has transpired while modeling for them -I did have a lawyer (an xxx lawyer, specifically) that looked through my contract as well without any issue.

I think that just about any contract in the adult industry is alil shitty when analyzing them all... but one hurdle at a time.

The first part of the quote you pulled was not talking about SG as to the amount paid ($80.00) for a set, however the second part about their "audition set" release agreement with new models Is something they still do. A model can submit a set and SG still uses it and holds the model to the exclusive release terms without paying while "considering" the model for more work.

One thing you have to admire about SG is they don't even try to hide it;

http://suicidegirls.com/model/

wait,... where did the release page go? It used to be available to the public.
Now the models have to give all this information upfront with images BEFORE even seeing the agreement. Oh bravo, taking three steps back I see.

Had to dig the link out of archives:

http://suicidegirls.com/img/Model_Agreement.pdf

That is a really bad agreement. Did you actually sign this? Seeing as you claim to work for SG it means you must have.

This would never stand up in court if it came under question. Of course since SG does such a wonderful job of harassing models into submission if they do voice an issue they never have to worry much about that.

Section 8 is horrible. Entirely open ended entrapment keeping the model from working on any other site if they so choose.

ughhh,..

Brandi_Lynn
07-04-2011, 05:39 PM
The first part of the quote you pulled was not talking about SG as to the amount paid ($80.00) for a set, however the second part about their "audition set" release agreement with new models Is something they still do. A model can submit a set and SG still uses it and holds the model to the exclusive release terms without paying while "considering" the model for more work.

One thing you have to admire about SG is they don't even try to hide it;

http://suicidegirls.com/model/

wait,... where did the release page go? It used to be available to the public.
Now the models have to give all this information upfront with images BEFORE even seeing the agreement. Oh bravo, taking three steps back I see.

Had to dig the link out of archives:

http://suicidegirls.com/img/Model_Agreement.pdf

That is a really bad agreement. Did you actually sign this? Seeing as you claim to work for SG it means you must have.

This would never stand up in court if it came under question. Of course since SG does such a wonderful job of harassing models into submission if they do voice an issue they never have to worry much about that.

Section 8 is horrible. Entirely open ended entrapment keeping the model from working on any other site if they so choose.

ughhh,..

Inaccurate. I never did an audition set -I was paid for the first set I did w/ them. They do not do audition sets. Sets can go up for member review, though -if the model chooses & loads them into the member review section (she does this herself or the photographer can do that for her).

As for modeling for other sites -that would be competitor sites (Gods Girls, etc..). Their are many of us that model for that site as well as other modeling gigs. As I mentioned the contract w/ SG is def not one of the most lucrative, but it is possible for it to be lucrative to some or used as a stepping stone, perhaps.

I also do not appreciate how you have worded your argument w/ me. Did you actually sign this? Seeing as you claim... This comes off as condescending & bothers me a good deal. I would appreciate it if you could lay off that alittle -considering I did not do that w/ you. Thank you.

And yes, I do claim to model on that site. Papina -check the site, you'll find me under that name. I also understand that some past models are unhappy w/ the site, while some current models are very pleased w/ the site. But I think that of course would be expected w/ anything that involves a competitive level.

twigs
07-04-2011, 08:25 PM
Inaccurate. I never did an audition set -I was paid for the first set I did w/ them. They do not do audition sets. Sets can go up for member review, though -if the model chooses & loads them into the member review section (she does this herself or the photographer can do that for her).


Yeah and how it is set up now the sign up hands over the models info and pics BEFORE the release agreement (if it even still directs to it now). does it?



As for modeling for other sites -that would be competitor sites (Gods Girls, etc..). Their are many of us that model for that site as well as other modeling gigs. As I mentioned the contract w/ SG is def not one of the most lucrative, but it is possible for it to be lucrative to some or used as a stepping stone, perhaps.


how,.. I'm sorry but the terms in things like section 8 of that contract are just,.. I don't mean to offend but if someone offered me that agreement I wouldn't sign it based on a lot of things in it that are just plain crazy. Like someone handing you a steak dinner spiked with arsenic and calling it a "healthy meal".



I also do not appreciate how you have worded your argument w/ me. Did you actually sign this? Seeing as you claim... This comes off as condescending & bothers me a good deal. I would appreciate it if you could lay off that alittle -considering I did not do that w/ you. Thank you.

And yes, I do claim to model on that site. Papina -check the site, you'll find me under that name. I also understand that some past models are unhappy w/ the site, while some current models are very pleased w/ the site. But I think that of course would be expected w/ anything that involves a competitive level.

I am sorry if it sounds that way, I don't mean any of it to sound directed in that way. I hate to point it out but it is all right there in that contract. that is posted on SG's own server. they admit it IS their contract. It isn't as bad as the MFC agreement but that isn't saying much in this case. It is like the difference between a steak dinner spiked with arsenic and a cheese cake topped with roach dung.
The chef has some major issues obviously.
Lots of models work for a lot of horrible sites under a lot of bad agreements.

Look at it this way. Is signing agreements like this kind of a bad move? yes. Does that mean the models are entirely screwed for it? NO.

Mainly because just for how these agreements are written up and distributed, they would never hold up in court.
These companies do a brilliant job of making the talent THINK they would hold up in court. That again is another confusing aspect of it all. I don't mean it to sound like I am saying anyone is dumb but,.. well,... That is two pretty obvious practical jokes being pulled there. I really don't think it is funny myself but after a while it gets kind of irritating that people can not see the obvious or do but think they can do nothing about it.
I have to work early. Have a good night and take care.

Brandi_Lynn
07-05-2011, 12:10 AM
Yeah and how it is set up now the sign up hands over the models info and pics BEFORE the release agreement (if it even still directs to it now). does it?



how,.. I'm sorry but the terms in things like section 8 of that contract are just,.. I don't mean to offend but if someone offered me that agreement I wouldn't sign it based on a lot of things in it that are just plain crazy. Like someone handing you a steak dinner spiked with arsenic and calling it a "healthy meal".



I am sorry if it sounds that way, I don't mean any of it to sound directed in that way. I hate to point it out but it is all right there in that contract. that is posted on SG's own server. they admit it IS their contract. It isn't as bad as the MFC agreement but that isn't saying much in this case. It is like the difference between a steak dinner spiked with arsenic and a cheese cake topped with roach dung.
The chef has some major issues obviously.
Lots of models work for a lot of horrible sites under a lot of bad agreements.

Look at it this way. Is signing agreements like this kind of a bad move? yes. Does that mean the models are entirely screwed for it? NO.

Mainly because just for how these agreements are written up and distributed, they would never hold up in court.
These companies do a brilliant job of making the talent THINK they would hold up in court. That again is another confusing aspect of it all. I don't mean it to sound like I am saying anyone is dumb but,.. well,... That is two pretty obvious practical jokes being pulled there. I really don't think it is funny myself but after a while it gets kind of irritating that people can not see the obvious or do but think they can do nothing about it.
I have to work early. Have a good night and take care.


I did not say that you were completely wrong -I said you were inaccurate. And my issue w/ you was not how you were talking about the contract -but how you came off as condescending -you might want to take notice on how you responded back to me before or some of your other responses in general. Your way of responding & stating things has just kind of pissed me off in general.

As I also mentioned, models aren't required to send in an audition set. I sure as hell didn't. Do you know anyone that models on the site? Are they unhappy?

BringOnTheMen
07-05-2011, 12:18 AM
Wait, I'm confused, is MFC the cheesecake topped with the roach dung or is SG? Your fancy collage talk is too hard to understand for my dumb model brain.

twigs
07-05-2011, 02:59 PM
I did not say that you were completely wrong -I said you were inaccurate. And my issue w/ you was not how you were talking about the contract -but how you came off as condescending -you might want to take notice on how you responded back to me before or some of your other responses in general. Your way of responding & stating things has just kind of pissed me off in general.

As I also mentioned, models aren't required to send in an audition set. I sure as hell didn't. Do you know anyone that models on the site? Are they unhappy?

I know plenty of X sg models who got really pissed with the site and there are some i know still contracted with them who are VERY unhappy.
I have yet to find any inaccuracies in what I've presented as yet but that is mainly due to a lack of available counter proof.

With SG that contract sticks out like a sore thumb. Really horrible contracts like that are the hallmark of corrupt operations and now that SG has pulled the contract from linking off their sign up page or BEFORE the model submits information, I have to wonder why.

BUT, this thread is about MFC. I don't have as much of a problem with SG because at least they more openly let everyone know they will screw them over before hand and their method of screwing talent over and flooding the industry with poor business practices has gotten out dated enough to be seen for what it is these days.

Brandi_Lynn
07-05-2011, 03:31 PM
That wouldn't happen to also be the same Deja Vu franchise with a club in Louisville, KY would it?

Deja Vu has many club locations...
Barely Legal (personally, really loved working at their NOLA location)
Hustler (NOLA location was so-so)
Lil Darlins
Deja Vu
All owned by the same company. Associated w/ the Larry Flint/Hustler brand. There are many, many locations worldwide

Brandi_Lynn
07-05-2011, 03:35 PM
I know plenty of X sg models who got really pissed with the site and there are some i know still contracted with them who are VERY unhappy.
I have yet to find any inaccuracies in what I've presented as yet but that is mainly due to a lack of available counter proof.

With SG that contract sticks out like a sore thumb. Really horrible contracts like that are the hallmark of corrupt operations and now that SG has pulled the contract from linking off their sign up page or BEFORE the model submits information, I have to wonder why.

BUT, this thread is about MFC. I don't have as much of a problem with SG because at least they more openly let everyone know they will screw them over before hand and their method of screwing talent over and flooding the industry with poor business practices has gotten out dated enough to be seen for what it is these days.

Ok, I'll take that. The thread is about MFC, but you did drag SG into the thread later on as well -that is the only reason that I even hopped into this thread.

Also thank you, for playing nicer w/ your responses back. I appreciate that, that is all I wanted.

twigs
07-07-2011, 02:47 PM
is all good, in the hood.

JoJoX
07-07-2011, 03:28 PM
Yeah, go ahead and make your own indy camming site. Good luck with the marketing and generating traffic. Yeah, you get 100% of the profits- all $200 a month of it. You'll be able to get back all the money you invested in this, let's say um....in 6+ months?

What the fuck is wrong with you guys? Mfc takes a cut because they do all the dirty work for you- dealing with financial issues, refunds, complaints, generate traffic, etc etc etc. And don't forget no start up cost- maybe a $40 web cam.

You complain about how half of the MFC girls are making close to nothing but guess what? That's THEIR problem for not doing their part or maybe they aren't cut out for it. There are thousands of models with camscore under 1000 just sit there and sit there expecting money to just automatically roll in. oh poor them!

As far as filing taxes, that's not MFC responsibility it's YOURS! DUUUUUHHH!! geeze-us!

And what the hell is "right?" NO business is ethical. Business is business. Whats ethical about selling cars? You think the car sales man has your best interest at heart? Or does he want commision?

I make around $5000 a month from MFC, filed my taxes and got $1500 back. I work 15 days out of 30 simply because I dont work the weekends and I get my period a week a month. I am so down for this scam.

twigs
07-08-2011, 05:42 AM
Actually it would be good if even half the girls on MFC were making anything close to a living wadge from it, but that isn't happening either.

It isn't so much an issue about the Tax liability as the 2257 liability. Most models in adult entertainment are independent contractors, that is nothing uncommon or unfair. The MFC contract is almost unique in how it specifically sights the 2257 liability as being the sole responsibility of the model. Most websites are a lot more confident in their ability to handle the 2257 on their own.

I am not making a camming site. As I have stated repeatedly, I am not here to make money or make anyone else money. I am just pointing out a really sleazy company with a contract that effectively establishes exploitation of the talent. It is strange though that again, another accusation of competition or marketing is being attempted when it didn't work the other zillion times.

Businesses become more or less ethical as they evolve. Every industry evolves. If MFC simply made their contract public and wasn't so actively lying to the public about their business practices or using deceptive marketing, this thread would not exist.

There is a certain level at which a business can exploit talent without it being that big a deal but MFC steps over lines that are archaic in how they deceive and manipulate both customers and talent. As pointed out in the earlier posts with the links I provided.

Things like that website Radvinsky (MFC owner) himself set up trying to make it look like another party was debunking that MFC is a scam yet there isn't a scrap of truth in any of the claims on the site and the WHOIS shows that Radvinsky actually owns the website.

Then that website claiming to sell illegal codes for porn sites but it turns out to be a promotional site for Radvinsky's websites.

Blueblood does a better job of hiding their attachment to dummy websites, masked promotional sites and fake news sites they use to promote themselves with.

The wiki clone Radvinsky put on the MFC server in order to deflect google traffic away from any adverse source information.

Then the MFC contract itself. A document so riddled with poor contracting terms and unfair liability entrapment it wouldn't stand up in any court. It is nothing more than a leveraging tool to threaten the model with if they ever happen to have an issue. The simple fact that the contract itself threatens the model not to seek advice on it or share it with any other party is proof enough that MFC simply is up to no good.

I salute that you have stepped up and presented information in a more adult manner than previous individuals who have proven little more than trollers. However the things needing to be addressed are outside the issues you have presented counter points on. It is good you are making money with this site. I never said that there aren't models making money off the site. But that number is very few among a great many who are on the site and this still does not address the core issues of that contract, the pay scales and the deceptive marketing practices of the company are unfair to many of the models on the site as well as models potentially being convinced that the MFC contract is fair or ethical as an industry standard. When so clearly it IS NOT fair or ethical in ANY industry to convince a person to sign such an agreement or use such an agreement.

MistyRose
07-08-2011, 09:29 AM
Actually it would be good if even half the girls on MFC were making anything close to a living wadge from it, but that isn't happening either.


Plenty of freelancers in any area aren't making a living wage out of their job. Maybe they're not good enough, maybe it's the draw of luck, maybe it's something else. It's the nature of the beast. You cannot blame a business for individuals not being able to live on it.

twigs
07-08-2011, 10:21 AM
As repeatedly stated previously. The problem is not with pay exactly. There are a lot of conflicting opinions on what the exact rate is paid out from the "token" system of MFC and the establishment of a credit switching system that can be changed in value at any time for what ever reason is also shady to no end BUT these would not be such a huge issue if MFC was simply up front about them and did not make their method of contracting a means to threaten and indenture the models in an agreement that is very plainly unfair and prejudicial in nature. There are a lot of unfair contracts in adult entertainment and a lot of sites that use deceptive marketing practices. I am simply pointing out the worst one I have ever seen as it does the most damage by making talent think this kind of business model is industry standard.

BringOnTheMen
07-08-2011, 05:25 PM
Dude, I already posted the part of the model contract that specifically says how the model will be paid out and very clearly explains the token system. Stop trying to say that MFC can just change it whenever they want to. They can't.

twigs
07-08-2011, 07:38 PM
Dude, I already posted the part of the model contract that specifically says how the model will be paid out and very clearly explains the token system. Stop trying to say that MFC can just change it whenever they want to. They can't.

Unless the MFC contract has changed in the last two days to indicate otherwise that is not true at all. you posted the token exchange rate example section. Not the section about how the dollar value of tokens can change at any time OR that the exact pay scale per model is to be formally established through an entirely other agreement NOT shown that they have to work out with the "studio". Of course being a MFC model (if you did sign their contract) you can not share, divulge or even talk about terms of the contract under threat of a law suit from MFC.

For the fifth time, I never said the models were not paid. But that contract does not clearly define the value of tokens or final pay rate to the model and does clearly state the value of the tokens themselves can be changed at any time. as we have seen from Radvinsky's own fake "MFC debunking" site and among other examples of the token exchange system that others have posted, the token rates are changing from person to person all the time.

Shameless Vixen
07-08-2011, 09:52 PM
Pursuant to the statute, all models are responsible for their own 2257 compliance. For very good safety/privacy reasons, virtually no webcam models are 100% compliant, whether independent or not. The website hosting their material also has separate compliance responsibilities. There have been other recent threads about this subject, so I'm not going into any greater detail about it.

And not meaning to nitpic, but it's driving me crazy... the word is W-A-G-E, not "wadge."

Djoser
07-08-2011, 10:16 PM
^^^I love the signature. :D

OK, I am very close to closing the thread. Try to keep it civil.

As I said before, I am not crazy about what I've seen of MFC, and I think Twigs has a point. But Twigs, as I also said before, you have come on so strong with it, you lost most of your potential audience.

I will say this--while I feel very sorry for so many of these women trying to cam on MFC and other sites, so many of them really ought to know better--they'd have to pay me a lot of fucking money to watch that shit...

twigs
07-08-2011, 10:37 PM
Pursuant to the statute, all models are responsible for their own 2257 compliance.


Which is why they provide ID and confirmation to the site owner who holds the 2257 record. BUT the MFC contract dictates the model is also liable for record holding.
The loophole left in the MFC contract actually puts so much liability on the model and "studio" for the 2257 liability that if the model happened to be under 18 MFC could wash their hands of it and put it square on the model or studio. However that is simply how the contract reads. There have been no instances recorded as yet of this being abused as models generally do not go to seek out work on a cam site when they are under age. Mainly this is more likely done as Radvinsky is well known for being sloppy with paperwork. But the 2257 liability issues in the MFC contract are hardly the big issues with this document and MFC.

jannisary
07-10-2011, 03:38 PM
If I was a webcam site business owner and was told that I had to pay an hourly wage to my models I would do the following.

1) Auditions - There is no way I'd pay ANY hourly wage to a model without first knowing how she looks and having some idea of her ability to perform on cam.

2) Schedules - If I'm expected to pay an hour wage then I'm going to expect the models to keep a regular work schedule and only work their scheduled hours.

3) Performance criteria or sales quota - if the model isn't making me money I don't want to keep paying that hourly wage.

And the list could go on and on and on.

Twigs, I have no idea why you have such an axe to grind against MFC but I think it is fairly obvious to most that you are grinding one and that some of your ideas are not realistic.

If a model isn't making a "living wage" off MFC or another cam site perhaps she should change things up with her routine, change sites,.... or perhaps... just perhaps.. change careers. Just like how not every woman is cut out to make a living as a dancer, not every woman is cut out to make a living as a cam model.

twigs
07-10-2011, 04:05 PM
***wonders when and where the subject of paying hourly wages came from***

A "living wage" doesn't exactly entail hourly pay or a W2.

If a model is not right for camming then why collect a huge mass of models on one site selling them the idea they ARE? Of course when I propose that I get the "well they are too dumb to know better and it isn't MFC's fault, at least they provide the service" reply. I hear a lot of that. I'm not saying you would have used it, just sayin.

If it was really about providing a service to the models then why have them agree to such a fraudulent contract? Why not just make the agreement simple and free of entrapment if it isn't that big a deal?

BringOnTheMen
07-11-2011, 03:03 AM
How is MFC supposed to know if the model will make money camming? One of the highest earners would not be hired at any SC I know of, which actually have potential dancers audition instead of just signing up. Camming is different.

twigs
07-11-2011, 07:48 AM
that is outside the subject I was talking about. it is much like jannisary's point. The problem isnt so much that most do not make the money they think they would, most on MFC are not huge earners. Which would be fine if they were not also strapped with an unfair contract AND working for a company that uses deceptive marketing or a token system they can change the value of at their whim.

So what if models go to a site and do not make money? That isn't the point, never was. It is when there is this huge open door policy and they are told they will all make money, yet most of them are not and their contracting is just plain fraudulent. You could have the biggest number of models working on your site than any other on the internet and it wouldn't matter if 80% of them aren't making a living wage as long as the contracting was fair and the company wasn't using deceptive marketing.
It is one thing to get suck pay, it is another thing to get suck pay and also be indentured.

MarvelGirl
07-11-2011, 09:38 AM
Well, color me stupid but I had no idea so many cam girls out there were desperate for wadges. Has the press been alerted about this wadgeless epidemic? Shit, I might not be making a living wadge for all I know because I'm not really sure what a wadge is and why exactly I need to make sure that mine is alive.

Unless he meant vadge. In that case, I'm pretty sure most cam girls have a living vadge. A dead one would probably drive off customers.

Arialandre
07-11-2011, 10:01 AM
Siiiiiigh. Ok, I'm here.

First of all I. Am a camgirl.
Secondly. I am a camgirl with an account on MFC.
So let's address a couple of things here in a nice mature way shall we?

As to tokens, their worth, and their changing value. Token values technically do fluctuate, but that is when purchased by a CUSTOMER. As a package deal type thing. For example: 100 tokens for $50 or 200 for $75. Technically when you divide the amount of tokens by the cost to by them, their values change. But it's the same as selling 1 poster for $15 or get a deal when you buy 2 for $25.
Now, for the models that doesn't matter to us because to us the token values stay CONSTANT. No matter how a customer bought his tokens when he spends them they are ALWAYS worth $0.05 to a model.
Now, as to "studios" changing the pay. That is something else entirely. Tokens to a model is ALWAYS $0.05. But some models sign up independently while others sign up with studios. Studios are like a model manager, they step in and take a percentage. So studio models may only be making $0.04 per token because before they get paid their studio takes a $0.01 cut for whatever services they provide, promotions etc.
I have 2 accounts on MFC. One where I make $0.05 per token and one where I make $0.45. The second one is because I signed up for a daily pay service that allows me to get paid every day instead of every two weeks so they get $0.005 of each token for their unbelievable service. But MFC themselves still pays me $0.05 on both accounts. One just happens to have a middle man.

Yes. MFC is a horrible shady company and the wild west of camsites. YES Leo is scum and will probably go to jail now. But the company DOES have a huge amount of traffic and the money making potential is THERE when you get into your groove and know how to work your room. The site doesn't stop you from making money, only a model stops herself from making money on that site. I don't make much money there. It's just not really my favorite place to be so I don't work at it. But that's MY issue. When I DO feel in the mood to work it I make money no problem. They ALWAYS pay on time. They give you the freedom to pimp ALL your own merch and content at any price point WE decide. AND they let you direct customers OFF of MFC to your own members site.

MFC can be SO much more that just cam shows when u put in the effort. You just have to think big. It's insane there but the freedom they give you is invaluable for those models that are making a business and a BRAND. You can sell photos, videos, memberships, raffles, anything you want at any price you want, and reach COUNTLESS people.

Yeah so the contract LOOKS shady. But guess what, we ALWAYS get paid. So for those models that put in some effort and creativity, it's all gravy baby! :D

twigs
07-11-2011, 11:36 AM
** sigh **

1- the MFC contract clearly states that the dollar value of "tokens" can change at any time.

2- the MFC contract stipulates that talking about the contract or contract terms in any way would result in a lawsuit from MFC.

"Yes. MFC is a horrible shady company and the wild west of camsites. YES Leo is scum and will probably go to jail now. But the company DOES have a huge amount of traffic and the money making potential is THERE when you get into your groove and know how to work your room."

So, the ship is sinking, the engine is total crap, the captain has no idea what he is doing but as long as the rooms are nice enough to stay in for a few more nights, why not let it ride?

"LOOKS" shady? I've yet to find any professional models in adult or fashion modeling who know and understand basic principals of contracting who would ever sign that thing.

Brandi_Lynn
07-11-2011, 11:53 AM
** sigh **

1- the MFC contract clearly states that the dollar value of "tokens" can change at any time.

2- the MFC contract stipulates that talking about the contract or contract terms in any way would result in a lawsuit from MFC.

"Yes. MFC is a horrible shady company and the wild west of camsites. YES Leo is scum and will probably go to jail now. But the company DOES have a huge amount of traffic and the money making potential is THERE when you get into your groove and know how to work your room."

So, the ship is sinking, the engine is total crap, the captain has no idea what he is doing but as long as the rooms are nice enough to stay in for a few more nights, why not let it ride?

"LOOKS" shady? I've yet to find any professional models in adult or fashion modeling who know and understand basic principals of contracting who would ever sign that thing.


Twigs, I think you are losing this battle. If the cam models on this forum are comfortable w/ MFC or any other site & aware of what is going on then why not let sleeping dogs lie? It's crazy to keep taking the same approach repeatedly & at some point expect a different result. What are you hoping to achieve at this point anymore?

Please realize that at the end of the day we all have bills to pay -so unless you would like to start up your very own camming site for the models & dancers on this forum, then maybe you should just drop it, perhaps? So far all I'm seeing in this thread is ruckus getting stirred up, but your not offering any real solutions to the issues you have w/ MFC/cam sites. What are your suggests or solutions to the problem???

twigs
07-11-2011, 12:17 PM
Have you read anything I've posted?,.. I could care less what a model who is comfortable with MFC thinks. I'm talking to those who have a chance to avoid it, those who want to take the time to see it for what it is before jumping in. Me telling the truth has little effect on those who DO make money from MFC and think it is all hunky dory. Unfortunately those who DO make good money from MFC are a very small minority compared to those who have been sucked into it, aren't making anything and are too afraid of this horrible contract to say something about it. A "losing battle" would be if 0% of the people I've talked to or those who have read any of the information provided did not get helpful information or were spared from MFC. I know I may sound like a broken record bu I am not here for the popularity contest. We have been through this conversation again and again and again. The answer is still and always will be the same. As long as people want something better, there will be. no matter how small a minority they may be. I would rather be part of a sane minority than a damned majority any day.

I suggest as i have suggested:

Get informed

ASK for advice on contracts

If a company claims they can force you to not share a contract with another party for advice, RUN

Just to name a few.

Brandi_Lynn
07-11-2011, 12:35 PM
Have you read anything I've posted?,.. I could care less what a model who is comfortable with MFC thinks. I'm talking to those who have a chance to avoid it, those who want to take the time to see it for what it is before jumping in. Me telling the truth has little effect on those who DO make money from MFC and think it is all hunky dory. Unfortunately those who DO make good money from MFC are a very small minority compared to those who have been sucked into it, aren't making anything and are too afraid of this horrible contract to say something about it. A "losing battle" would be if 0% of the people I've talked to or those who have read any of the information provided did not get helpful information or were spared from MFC. I know I may sound like a broken record bu I am not here for the popularity contest. We have been through this conversation again and again and again. The answer is still and always will be the same. As long as people want something better, there will be. no matter how small a minority they may be. I would rather be part of a sane minority than a damned majority any day.

I suggest as i have suggested:

Get informed

ASK for advice on contracts

If a company claims they can force you to not share a contract with another party for advice, RUN

Just to name a few.

Yes, I have read your posts as well as everyone else's in response to yours. Obviously, I have -otherwise I wouldn't have posted.

What I'm saying is that you have already stated the same things over & over. You've just stated this yourself. I'll repeat my response. What are your solutions to the problem? Other than be informed or legal advice -because that is still not a solution for income for these girls. What site should these girls work for instead? If starting there own site then how do they go about promotion for it? How do they supplement their income in the meantime? Now do you see what I'm saying -try to provide some solutions for your rant. Real solutions.

So please don't get all up in arms at me, when the request I've made is quite reasonable. /:O

twigs
07-11-2011, 01:46 PM
Well another obvious solution would be for models to avoid sites where harldy 20% of the people working for it are making any real money.

If i endorse a site, then people say I am trying to compete or I work with another site or I'm doing this to make money.

If the majority of the girls on MFC aren't making real money anyway, what does it hurt to keep them or any other models from wasting time and also having to be strapped with that horrible contract?

Arialandre
07-11-2011, 01:53 PM
What do u mean "strapped"? Umm you KNOW we can walk away whenever we want right?

Brandi_Lynn
07-11-2011, 02:07 PM
Well another obvious solution would be for models to avoid sites where harldy 20% of the people working for it are making any real money.

If i endorse a site, then people say I am trying to compete or I work with another site or I'm doing this to make money.

If the majority of the girls on MFC aren't making real money anyway, what does it hurt to keep them or any other models from wasting time and also having to be strapped with that horrible contract?

So then, this whole damn thread is just useless. I feel like your response is just a complete cop out to my last post. Thanks.

I almost view this now as -If your not gonna help w/ any of the issues that you are on your soapbox about then why are you even bothering, just leave well enough alone. If you want to be an activist for this industry then do something for it, rather than just talking.

This just makes me so mad now. Wtf. >:(

twigs
07-11-2011, 02:08 PM
What do u mean "strapped"? Umm you KNOW we can walk away whenever we want right?

You should look at the contract again. check section 8.
That is a ONE YEAR term.



the section below 8 does state the model can opt out via email but that is hardly the point. I'm sure you must be aware of the other terms of this agreement.

twigs
07-11-2011, 02:13 PM
So then, this whole damn thread is just useless. I feel like your response is just a complete cop out to my last post. Thanks.

I almost view this now as -If your not gonna help w/ any of the issues that you are on your soapbox about then why are you even bothering, just leave well enough alone. If you want to be an activist for this industry then do something for it, rather than just talking.

This just makes me so mad now. Wtf. >:(

I've been giving advice through this entire thread. I just gave more in the last two replies to you. I'm not going to endorse a site but I'll point out ones that should be avoided and I've outlined exactly what one needs to look at to avoid others that are bad.
If that isn't EXACTLY what you are now saying I am not doing then I'd have to say you are simply replying to me to accuse the same shtick in order to derail the issue.

I am sorry YOU are mad but there are plenty of others who aren't.