Evaluating the legality of MLM streambox opportunities
In the lead up to the blockbuster Floyd ‘Money’ Mayweather and Manny ‘Pacman’ Pacquiao fight, billed as ‘the biggest pay-per-view sporting event in recent history‘, Showtime and HBO have been actively litigating against illegal stream providers.
To date two streaming websites have been shut down by court order in the US, with more litigation expected to be filed.
What caught my eye about the lawsuits was they were targeted streaming providers not because they’d streamed the fight (how could they, it hasn’t happened yet), but merely because they were ‘planning to illegally stream the fight‘.
In other words, advertising an intention to offer a stream of the fight was enough for a US court to have the two sites in question shut down.
The pay networks launched an attack in the Californian federal court against boxinghd.net, sportship.org and several other anonymous defendants offering a free stream of the fight.
The documents also accuse the defendants of promoting the illegal streams of the fight with advertising on the sites.
Since the legal action both websites have been shut down.
Upon reading an article reporting these developments, my thoughts turned to the streambox MLM opportunities we’ve seen emerge these last few months.
Both uBox and vStream TV have emerged as first-adopters in this fledgling niche, with both advertising access to a plethora of unlicensed content.
Here’s how vStream TV market their opportunity on their official website:
uBox are a little more subtle, but nonetheless market access to unlicensed third-party content:
Within the context of the recently filed legal action against websites marketing upcoming streams of the Mayweather vs. Pacquiao fight, I took it upon myself to see if the fight was being used to market vStream TV or uWay.
A quick Google search revealed an abundance of marketing material for both companies, precisely capitalizing on the upcoming pay-per-view fight as a selling point.
Here’s a sample of three vStream TV adverts accessed today, on May 1st, 2015;
Exhibit A:
Exhibit B:
and Exhibit C:
And here’s three randomly collected samples of uBox advertising;
Exhibit A:
Exhibit B:
and Exhibit C:
Many more examples are available via a combination of relevant keyword searches through Google.
Here’s the thing – both uBox and vStream TV claim to be entirely legal, which is reflected in their own advertising and that of their affiliates.
Yet in filing their recent case against streaming websites,
court papers clearly state there “are no authorised online streams of the coverage”, which means the websites in question are infringing on HBO/Showtime’s copyright.
With both sites sued consequently shut down, this is not up for debate – at least not within a legal context (what anyone thinks of current copyright law in the US is another discussion entirely).
So my question then is, how is uBox and vStream TV marketing any different to that of the streaming sites?
The sites in question didn’t stream the fight themselves, and were nailed solely on their marketing efforts.
Again, look at the advertising examples I’ve provided above (and by all means go and find your own if you want), but tell me how is it any different?
And before anyone mentions that neither uBox or vStream TV themselves are openly advertising the Mayweather vs. Pacquiao fight, I’ll point out that holding MLM companies accountable for their affiliate’s marketing efforts is well-established case-law.
Although we typically see it in relation to claims made in the health and wellness niche, surely the same applies to claims made by streambox MLM opportunities – specifically the legality of marketing MLM income opportunities via illegal access to licensed content?
Furthermore how on Earth are either vStream TV or uBox going to even address this sort of marketing, seeing as they themselves claim that access unlicensed content is 100% legal in the US?
In an effort to clarify this issue BehindMLM has reached out to both Showtime and HBO, providing them with the exact location of the advertising examples above and both uBox and vStream TV’s websites.
Pending a response from either company, stay tuned…
the ‘request for relief’ in the motion filed by HBO and others, against the free streaming sites, goes beyond laying responsibility of free streaming on the streaming websites alone.
all third party service providers which ‘enable’ this free streaming have also been targeted and warned not to assist.
BTW where is the court order granting the relief?
were the two infringing websites shut by court order or by their website hosts?
in the face of this recent case, ubox and vstream are in big trouble.
granted, that it is affiliates who are advertising the big fight, but they are doing so only because ubox and vstream ‘Intend’ to provide the streaming.
the match is tomorrow, and if indeed these two MLM streaming boxes provide free streaming of the fight, HBO et all may go after them, no holds barred.
HBO etc are charging between 89$ to 100$ for this match.
that’s like way tooooo much.
such high charges naturally encourages free streamers.
how about some good sense from everyone?
As I understand it the court made their ruling, which was then used to shut the sites down (at a hosting level).
How much is being charged to legally watch the event is a side-issue, my main focus was on the ruling itself and what it means for these “ZOMG FREE ENTERTAINMENT FOR LIFE!” streambox MLM opportunities.
correct. on april 30th, 2015, the court granted a TRO [temporary restraining order] in favor of plaintiffs HBO etc.
you can read the order here:
pmcdeadline2.files.wordpress.com/2015/04/showtime-hbo-mayweather-manny-tro-wm.pdf
Ummm, all you have to do is google Android tv boxes (Ozedit: Non-MLM derail attempts removed.)
Or better yet, google “how to get the mayweather fight for free”
^^ Has nothing to do with MLM opportunities advertising access to illegal pay-per-view streams in order to market their MLM business opportunities.
or better yet, read the complaint of HBO etc and the TRO order of the court to understand how illegal it is to try and “get the mayweather fight for free”
the complaint was filed on the 28th april and TRO granted on april 30th. it took all of two days to get the illegal streaming websites shut down. the future is here.
The companies are not advertising free ppv, and in fact, I have seen an email that said anyone that was promoting the fact you can get free ppv will be terminated.
the big cable satellite tv companies like HBO are getting into the streaming space themselves. last year HBO [time warner] announced, that in 2015, they will have streaming of top shows like the ‘game of thrones’ etc, separate from cable TV bundled subscriptions.
the gray streaming space where content thieves are currently having a ball, is going to get swept up and cleaned moving forward.
theguardian.com/media/2014/oct/15/hbo-web-only-streaming-service-2015
So please forward that information to the respective companies for them to deal with.
I have had a streaming device for a couple years. The devices do not have any content on them.
Whoever runs these companies does not have a server with the content. Anyone can watch this fight from there computer without these devices.
The device is legal to own and sell. There are many many companies selling these devices that are far bigger than Ubox or Vstream and they advertise right on there FB pages about getting the fight for free.
The owner of Jetstream box advertises right on his FB page about getting the fight for free. Jetstream is a big player in the Streaming box industry.
I went to both the UBOX and Vstream websites and see no mention of Payperview.
What if someone sent out to all their FB friends a link to the fight to watch on their computer. Would that be illegal?
The companies that sell these devices do not control the content in KODI. Its an open source for anyone to access.
lol. wacky scammer.
Welcome to MLM. What your affiliates are advertising matters.
Oh and vStream TV is most definitely advertising “ZOMG FREE EVERYTHING!” on their website.
@Carlton
Herp derp the marketing is in question here, not the hardware.
In MLM how you market the opportunity and products matters.
ZOMG ALL YOU CAN WATCH “Worldwide sporting events” TOTALLY FREE LOLOL FOR LIFE YOLO!
As advertised on the vStream TV website, 1st of May 2015.
the time for advertising has passed.
now if ppv or ubox or vstream Dare to stream this fight for free, they will get Baked.
the order against streaming the fight for free is already there, it will fry anyone else who actually Dares the court, and streams the fight for free.
besides, oz has sent the information to the broadcasters, HBO etc.
let’s see if ubox or vstream gives their affiliates this fight for free!
You can find a lot of illegal **** online, including child porn, buy illegal narcotics (i.e. new silk road), bomb making plans, and whatnot.
So your point is what, exactly?
Did you actually READ the TRO?
Anyone can also watch childporn from their computer and do a lot of illegal ****. So what?
Pot calling the kettle black, I see. So uBox and Vstream are “lesser evil” than Jetstream?
You need your eyes checked. The affiliate websites do mention it. This is MLM, so affiliate websites are the ones that mattered.
You want to find out how much HBO and whoever want to sue you for? Remember MPAA and SPAA were suing little grandmas and whoever for 250000 per violation just for a couple songs?
KDOI does not control content either. Try again. Someone has to subscribe to these illegal feeds.
HBO Now already does it for $15 per month with no cableTV account required
correct. now ‘apple’ are going to come out with a TV streaming service too.
the industry will move to streaming via internet, away from cable tv.
during this transition cable TV will have to fight the competition, by allowing viewers slimmer packages and choose exactly which channels they want to purchase, without buying channel bouquets, where you pay more and get channels you don’t watch.
all in all, days for illegal streamers are coming to end, because the legit broadcasters will take over and control the streaming space, and kick out the thieves in the process.
technology is evolving faster than people and companies can adjust their businesses to it. so, this gave illegal streamers a free run for some time. no more free lunch for much longer.
Anjali
The boxes don’t stream the content for a person. A person has to find the content and stream it.
So your logic on anyone streaming the fight for free would mean anyone with a computer would already have an illegal device.
The boxes are just a computer. I bet there will be thousands more people streaming the ppv with Dell computers than all the tv boxes combined. Maybe the courts should go after Dell?
^^ Advertising…
The recent court decision wasn’t about streaming. How could it be? The fight hasn’t even aired yet…
Am I banging my head against a brickwall trying to explain the significance of the decision here?
The boxes don’t stream for the person. The person has to stream for themselves. If your logic made sense the boxes would be illegal.
There are websites you can go to and pay $15 for full HD PPV. Its the people making the content available not the hardware sold.
Again, those websites were shut down because they advertised streams.
The very thing vStream TV, uBox and their affiliates are doing.
*continues to bash head against brick wall*
If you wish to continue to ignore the merits of the recent court decision and instead harp on with irrelevant derail attempts, do it elsewhere.
The facts as they stand are this:
At least two streaming websites were shut down in the US following the advertisement of streams containing copyrighted content. The streams themselves had not gone live.
The legality of streaming as a technology, nor the hardware used to do it was not called into question, nor is it being refuted.
MLM Streambox companies and their affiliates are currently engaged in the same practice of advertising unlicensed content streams, with evidence widespread across the internet.
I see, you’re going for the “guns don’t kill people, people kill people” argument.
The flaw with that argument is guns makes killing people VERY VERY easy and doesn’t even need to get close.
The way Streaming boxes makes grabbing illegal streams pushing a few buttons on a TV remote rather than understanding network, internet, browser, and blah blah blah.
Next argument please.
Don’t you know you can do the same things on your computer and then plug your computer into your TV and use a wireless remote.
The box is no different. K Chang, Have you ever watched streaming clips of any movies on Youtube? If not you are in a very small minority.
@Doc
How YouTube and “your computer” are advertised matters.
Advertising was what was relevant in this lawsuit, not streaming technology.
Advertising streams of unlicensed content was enough to get two websites shutdown by a US court. That’s a pretty strong precedent.
You have MLM streambox opportunity affiliates engaging in the same behaviour, as well as the company’s themselves (none of the accessible content advertised on either uBox or vStream TV is appropriately licensed).
Please note anything not addressing the above will be marked as spam.
So if the box companies just sold the boxes and never advertised the content it would be ok?
thanks to Ribshaw at realscam:
wsj.com/articles/guarding-the-pacquiao-mayweather-pay-per-view-strongbox-1430325064
that pretty much pisses on all the scammer arguments
In the eyes of US courts, given the current laws in place – sure. The hardware itself isn’t illegal.
Note that being MLM, it’s not just how the companies advertise the product – affiliate advertising matters too.
@Whip
I think there’s a distinction to be made between public broadcast and internet streams.
There could be a cross-over if a bar was using a uBox or vStream TV device to broadcast the fight, but I don’t think that’s likely.
I’ve watched legal and illegal streams, downloads, and whatnot. I don’t go around trying to justify illegal stream.
One reason I joined Amazon prime is to watch their unlimited movies.
Then they’d have a hard time justifying their higher price against Roku (which is absolutely legal) or the no-name TV boxes from China which costs even less.
But that’s the price you do playing within the rules rather than claiming **** that’s outside the rules.
It’s the copyrighted material that is illegal to distribute.
Advertising that people can watch specific copyrighted material for free if they buy a box will also be illegal (if you don’t have a license to distribute that specific material).
The box isn’t illegal in itself. It can be used for legitimate purposes, e.g. to get access to some additional TV channels and other legitimate material.
Selling the box for the specific purpose of giving people illegal access to copyrighted material will most likely be illegal. “Watch PPV for free!” is most likely illegal advertising.
Streaming isn’t illegal in itself. Streaming can be used for legitimate purposes.
* Streaming “CLIPS” on YouTube is not the same as streaming entire movies via an MLM based unlicensed source
* unauthorized “CLIPS” of copyrighted material are frequently removed from YouTube, with DMCA notices left in their place. In fact, more than three complaints and the account itself is cancelled
* As has been repeatedly pointed out in this thread, the act of merely advertising the intent to stream copyrighted material is sufficient for prosecution
not ‘most likely illegal’, if someone advertises streaming boxes for free access to copyrighted material, it is ‘most definitely illegal’.
in MGM Studios, Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd, 2005, which is a US Supreme Court decision, the bench unanimously found that:
since the SC did not want to ‘chill’ technological innovation, they have, by a divided opinion, allowed the devices themselves to remain ‘legal’, but rested the ‘responsibility’ of fair use on the distributors of such technology/devices.
thus if a distributor of a device , which is capable of non infringing usage, ‘Advertises’ and ‘Sells’ the device as providing illegal access to copyrighted material, then it is completely ‘illegal’.
the distributor is liable for the infringement of copyright by his third party users, because he advertised the device as capable of such infringement.
all supporters of illegally advertised streaming boxes may leave the thread now, their argument is over. finis. decimated.
That supreme court decision (Ozedit: is not the recent lawsuit in the US that shut down two streaming sites for advertising.
Offtopic derail attempts removed.)
Distributors of companies that market these products should be dealt with swiftly and harshly by the companies they are promoting.
Interestingly, the ads you are posting in your article do not even go to VStream distributors, they are other companies completely. It seems a lot of people are using “VStream” in their advertising that have nothing to do with the company. lol
How’s that going to happen when the companies themselves advertise “OMG LOL FREE ALL YOU CAN EAT ILLEGAL TV, MOVIES AND PPV!” on their websites?
Accessing illegal streams “out of the box” is the corporate marketing campaign for both uBox and vStream TV.
Two have the phone numbers of vStream TV affiliates (looking to offload the excess inventory they bought when they signed up), one redirects to another website.
There are plenty more examples of this sort of advertising from vStream affiliates out there.
Regarding that Supreme Court decision, it’s again about advertising.
You want argue the paper-thin defense of “it has nothing to do with streaming”, solely because streaming is not referenced in the decision, go do it elsewhere.
This entire article is about how these MLM streambox opportunities are advertised. To which that case is of obvious relevance.
Anything outside of a discussion on how vStream TV and uBox are being advertised (“ACCESS ILLEGALLY STREAMED CONTENT!”) is irrelevant.
Well, any distributor caught advertising VStream in that way will be terminated immediately.
I have doubts that even those phone numbers are for buying “VStream” units. They are more than likely other units completely.
There are many people and companies using the name “VStream” which have nothing to do with the company selling the VStream in your article.
If you forward the info to the company, those distributors will be terminated.
It’s up to vStream themselves to hold their affiliates accountable. I don’t work for vStream compliance.
All you have to do is google “vstreamtv” or “vstream tv” and thousands of examples of affiliates advertising access to illegal content to market the vStream TV opportunity come up.
Why wouldn’t it, when vStream TV themselves advertise like this:
^^^ That’s all unlicensed content.
Also, from what I hear, VStream Media Centers are not going to come loaded with Kodi or any addons.
Anyone purchasing a unit is going to have to install it themselves and agree to a lot of legal jargon before they do install it.
There is a lot more to them too, you can access Google Play Store for thousands of apps, access your email, Facebook, your Netflix or Amazon Prime account and so much more. It will turn any TV into a smart TV.
Cool. Right here, right now though – that’s not the case.
^^ None of which negates the advertising and access of illegal content, primarily being used to market the MLM opportunity.
that supreme court decision, MGM Studios, Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd, 2005, may not have been about streaming per se.
but the SC decision covered All Devices that are Advertised as capable of accessing copyrighted material illegally.
it very much applies to this instant case of streaming boxes advertising access to ‘latest movies in HD’ etc.
the vstream tv website says ‘cut the cord on television’. but it is the ‘cord’ which ensures payments to content providers like HBO.
when vstream tv encourages you to ‘cut the cord’, they are encouraging users to access for free, copyrighted material, which actually needs to be paid for. this is illegal advertising.
Thus providing yet another reason potential IBOs should think twice before becoming involved in any MLM company involving itself in streaming copyrighted product
1) it’s demonstrably illegal
and
2) accessing the content requires a certain degree of technical proficiency
and
3) If the customer is tech savvy, the price disparity between the MLM product and similar already available lower cost alternatives
MLM style face-to-face marketing is difficult enough without having to explain away such glaringly obvious problems before you even start.
@ chris
go check out how roku is sold on it’s website. theres no talk about ‘cut the cord on television’.
it clearly says free channels are available, and some channels have to be subscribed to. it clearly says you can ‘rent’ tv serials and ‘buy’ movies easily.
if the management of vstream tv, are honest in their ‘intent’, they would have adopted a selling style similar to roku.
BTW roku is priced at 50$, approximately 7 times less than vstream. can you explain that?
A discussion I heard on the radio today here in the States is that bar owners have tried to take their home boxes (which they paid for the pay per view) and brought them to the bar to show a fight to circumvent the alleged $25-30,000 it would cost for them to order it as a bar.
It’s pretty much the same thing. They are scabbing content they haven’t paid for but someone else did (licensing).
There’s a huge difference between cable box PPV (licensed for one household) and a commercial operation.
What people don’t usually notice is Comcast, the largest cable TV provider in the US, has a SEPARATE PLAN for bars and restaurants.
NOLINK://business.comcast.com/tv/restaurants/plans-pricing
And then there are add ons on TOP of that price. If you bring a home box to use it at work, you’re violating your Comcast terms.
And since comcast own the box, and have remote admin rights on the box, they’d know you moved the box and all that.
People also don’t know that motorcoaches are NOT allowed to play commercial movie DVDs and such via the internal video system, even if purchased legally, because those movies are only licensed for home showing, and showing them in a bus would constitute a “public performance” which requires a different license.
NOLINK://motorcoach.swankmp.com/faq
on a related thread “vStream TV Review: Legit media streaming for $349?” oz raised the question :
since the legality of streaming boxes is being evaluated here, i brought this quote here, to evaluate the source these illegal streaming boxes access content from.
if the source is a database built on bit torrents then it is illegal under most nation states:
if the source that these streaming boxes use, are ‘some dubious cloud-based “restreaming” of existing legal stream services’, then just last year a US supreme court decision has deemed such cloud based restreaming over the internet, illegal.
in American Broadcasting Companies v. Aereo,2014, the US supreme court found rebroadcasting of copyrighted content using cloud technology ‘illegal’.
aereo was capturing free-to-air TV broadcasts, and rebroadcasting them to customers, via the internet, using cloud technology. they were not paying broadcasters any fee.
so , we know that the US SC has outlawed ‘devices’, which advertise themselves as capable of accessing copyrighted material illegally, AND, we know that streaming that is provided on the back of illegal torrents or cloud based rebroadcasting is illegal.
i’m not a techie, but i’m trying to get a laypersons handle on this stuff. correct me if i’m wrong.
Had never given that much thought before, but an interesting find. I don’t find myself on a bus/charter bus very often, but it does make sense.
You don’t have to pay it.
huh, what do you mean by that?
Correct. The type of TECHNOLOGY isn’t important, e.g. you can’t use arguments like “the law can only be applied to specific technologies” as a defense.
You have different types of copyright infringements …
* Copying
* Distribution of illegal copies.
* Broadcasting (without making copies)
* Public performance
And you have different types of uses, e.g. personal use only, commercial use, scientific or educational uses, libraries.
Technology may have some importance when it comes to the purpose of something, e.g. a copy can have a temporary purpose (e.g. preloading function, pause function, etc.).
“You can’t resell something you don’t own”. You must first acquire the right to resell it before you can sell it to others. You can’t give it away for free either if you don’t own that right.
Simple rules like that will cover most of the commercial uses. For other types of uses you will need to understand the difference between temporary copies and permanent ones, and between fair and illegal uses.
I have checked the “Mayweather v Pacquiao” TRO lawsuit. The plaintiff filed a Notice of Voluntarily Dismissal By the Plaintiff, Without Prejudice on May 6 2015.
Case name:
Showtime Networks Inc. et al v. John Doe 1, et al
Case number:
2:15-CV-03147-CW-MRW (from memory)
I don’t think the case was settled outside court, but it may have been.