Printable View
Here is the thread started by HomeBusinessTeam
Board Message
This is also being heavily pimped by David Sherman!
The box, without the business opp, costs around $80, but they charge a ridiculous $300 to join the opportunity. The promoters like to use the "you can join for free and sell it retail for a whopping 30% profit"/ LOL, good luck finding suckers to buy this highly overpriced box!
ya got amazon fire and chromecast too.
Sounds like Rabbit TV, only 50X the price for the MLMers and a Matrix for the people who believe in fairy tales.
http://www.amazon.com/Telebrands-668...RankDescending
As one who evaluates all free to join programs, this one caught my interest because of my quest to bypass cable and satellite which are the real ripoff scams in my opinion. Who likes their cable or satellite companies, never mind the fees. You are forced to take packages of programming I may never want to watch just to access one channel I do want to watch. Total ripoff.
So I went with Roku, Amazin, ApplyTV, Google, Netfilix, and evaluated them all, but like most, you still have to pay for payperview movies, MMA and Boxing, and so I was researching all these streaming boxes, and it can get confusing to the lay person who is not up on streaming technologies. Yes, as some have said, you can buy a box for less, I started my quest with Digistream for a couple hundred, only problem was, you had to research the load all the apps you need to see what you want to watch. Having spent hours with this process, yes, it works, not great, but it does work for some channels, not all, and given it is not quad 4 level processor, picture quality is not there, as well, buffering which is common issue with many internet connections is a hassle to deal with.
OK, so I found VSTREAMTV, as well as private branded systems which are the same unit, three were found, and all selling for same price, from $349. to $399. for DevelStream. So again, yes, there are other systems on market, but only these top of the line systems are worth the price as you get all the uploaded apps needed to access every single movie or TV show ever broadcasted, so for those that say retail is a ripoff, yes, I would agree, but doesn't it make more sense to get a fully loaded system saving tons of time, never mind all the viruses, spyware, adware you get when downloading on your computer. Yes, I have been there, and have a laptop set up just for the safety factor not wanting to have my data accessed, so I use a basic online access computer just for this risky downloading I did in my research for free TV programming.
So for those just looking at this business model, like all MLM's, there is going to be a markup, but if you learn what I have learned, the dealer programs out there all demand selling at same price as VSTREAMTV is also using as retail. Of course, if you purchase a 1000 units you can get price down below $200., which is what we have with VSTREAMTV. So who is ripping who off? Your readers can become distributors and start your own MLM or affiliate program. Nutronix, who is behind this new division did just that, became a master distributor. Nothing unique here, straight out business decision by Nutronix, a 16 year old existing MLM supplement company, so they had their act together for years, and I have been paid on time everytime for years.
Sure, it is always fun to attack a new company, but again, this is not a new company, it is an existing 16 year old company which simply added a new division for FREE-STREAM-TV system launch, and launch it has, seems everyone hates their cable and satellite companies just as I do. My two year contract just came due last month and my plan went from $88.00 to $156.00 with same services, so is this not a ripoff or what? Perfect timing as I got a system to evaluate last month, and after watching a dozen movies, including American Sniper which is still in theaters at the time last month, this system has already paid for iteself in just one month based on my PPV MMA savings of $60.00 and the upcoming Maywether fight which is $100.00, add in a dozen PPV movies at $6.95. each, totalling $83.40, so there you have it, $243.40 saved, plus the $68.00 for cable fee increase I would have had to pay last month if I had kept it, never mind the $88.00 old rate which I could not cancel in time, so for all this, I saved $311.40 in first month of ownership of my FREE-STREAM-TV system.
Bottom line, everyone has to evaluate their own current costs and movie rental expenses over the past year, and I doubtl anyone will not come up with over a thousand in savings switching to streaming system. Oh, forgot to mention I am also cancelling Netflix and selling my Roku, AppleTV and Amazon units, so depending on what I get for these, I know I have my purchase price covered in first month, imagine that, real value when you take the time to analyze your current costs verses purchasing this system. Sure made sense to me even without the free distributorship income opportunity which everyone hates here. lol
With a systme which can be used anywhere in the world, and very little real equal competition, I see this as a great business opportunity, and when combined with the Nutronix excellent supplement and nutritional product line, who know how this will increase our customer base offering a powerful unit like this for the same fair traded price on open market without the commissions. Oh, and all the units I sold already will more than triple my initial cost for my unit, so a win, win, win scenario no matter how one want to attack it. I also have a digistream already loaded with some applications which I hope to sell for a couple hundred, so I am at the no risk positive cashflow position with little to know effort. So for the doubters, go ahead, I love naysayers and MLM haters, I was one too at one time. lol
Good luck to all,
Well, thanks for the "unbiased" review. I'm sure all the content providers will have no problem giving their movies, sports events, and shows away for free. In fact, does this have an option where free pizza and beer can be delivered while we watch our free shows?
Wait, instead of paying for furniture do you have an MLM where I can get one of those nice theater set ups for free?
Let's cut the bullshit. If you want to put up an honest evaluation then please do.
Are there no free MLM newspapers, maybe let's toss that in, so you can keep on top of what the Supreme Court has to say about using content without paying the man.
Supreme Court delivers a death blow to Aereo's over-the-air TV streaming service | TechHive
Attachment 9532
Until then, that is more than enough of the foolishness.
I'll leave your nonsense here for the moment, Mike,
any more and both it and you will (not so) mysteriously disappear
Quote:
Originally Posted by JOIN-FREE
This is "OFFSHORE-WEALTH". a KNOWN PONZI/SCAM PIMP. I wouldn't trust one thing he says! Here is WARNING.... U.S. Dollar Exchange Article of Interest - Page 25
FREE BUSINESSES FREE BUSINESS REVIEWS FREE RECESSION PROOF HOME BASED ONLINE FREE BUSINESS WORK FROM HOME TRAFFIC BUILDING FACEBOOK YOUTUBE GOOGLE + STRATEGIES UTILIZING FREE SALES INCENTIVES FREE ADVERTISING VIRAL TRAFFIC BUILDING BUSINESS & DISCOUN
Here is a post from HomeBusinessTeam on the MMG forum to justify the ridiculous price for this box. Make no mistake about it, the cost is so high so they can pay the pimps, not because this box is so much better than all others out there that cost $80-$100!
Board Message
Attachment 9546Quote:
Originally Posted by busttheblock
This guy could show up at people's houses, set their money on fire, and still cost them less than following his crappy conspiracy scams. Pitching an overpriced magic TV box may actually be doing them a favor.
Few things from our friend's post:
The FED is already publicly and privately audited. FRB: Does the Federal Reserve ever get audited?
Folks are free to waste their money and mental energy any way they see fit, pinning hopes that one more audit is going to reveal some grand conspiracy is a money loser IMO. Then again, I don't believe in FREE PROGRAMMING courtesy of some MLM promoted on a HYIP thread. So what do I know, I will only add:
Listen to people that can't even keep up on their own conspiracy theories at your own peril:
On Jan. 19, the Bundesbank delivered its own surprise, publishing a tally of its 2014 gold repatriations. During the year, the German central bank had shipped 85 tons from New York to Frankfurt, blowing away the mere 5 tons from 2013 and setting a pace at which the Bundesbank would easily meet its target of 300 tons returned by 2020.
The Bundesbank explained that it recast the bars because they hadn’t met the “London good delivery” standard.
Germany's Gold Repatriation Activist Peter Boehringer Gets Results - Bloomberg Business
An excerpt on the Iraqi Dinar:
you can easily buy one million dinars for the low, low price of $1,100. Of course, at the current exchange rate, one million dinars is actually only worth $859. So you’re paying a 22% commission for the privilege of getting unusable cash sent to you
The Ugly Truth About the Iraqi Dinar | Skeptoid
Good grief!
Cool, a built-in exit strategy that looks like the initial cheerleaders and promoters actually cared..."Hey, how could we know?" ;-)Quote:
Originally Posted by ribshaw
Thanks for your input, and yes, I read case history on Aereo, and they were copying content and rebraodcasting it, and although they lost the suit, it was a split decision, so to me that is a gray area evidently. What they were doing was copyright violation, so end of story. OK, here is how I see it, and given there are hundreds of websites where one can access streaming content, and thousands watching content, but none are downloading it and rebroadcasting content. If you experts think this is illegal, I am all ears, I got burned years ago on a bad deal, so I respect your input on scams, why else would I want to hear the slams. lol The below article spells it out in layman terms. So if VSTREAMTV is not downloading content, not rebroadcasting content, then are they violating copyright laws? They are selling the technology and loading the software which enables whoever to stream whatever, so unless the technology comes under some kind of regulation, I don't see it as the same as Aereo. So please help everyone reading this by offering you expertise. All I know is it works, and given Nutronix which is a 16 year old supplement company launched this new division, and has stated their is no illegal issues, I am open to your expertise. I will be long gone if this is illegal, learned my lesson long ago.Quote:
Originally Posted by ribshaw
Slipperiness Behind Aereo Ruling: Solving Riddles of Legislative Intent and Separation of Powers | Clay Calvert
The proof is in the pudding! This HomeBusinessTeam pimp is showing his/her true colors now. Here is the pimps latest post in the mmg forum Board MessageQuote:
Originally Posted by JustTooMuchTime
It is ALL ABOUT THE MONEY and has NOTHING to do with this OVERPRICED METAL BOX!
I direct you to OZ's review. A fool and his money...Quote:
Originally Posted by JOIN-FREE
vStream TV Review: Legit media streaming for $349?
Uh, if I didn’t know any better, I’d suggest that all that’s happening here is the streaming of illegal torrents via a database StreamSmart themselves maintain.
Either that or there’s some dubious cloud-based “restreaming” of existing legal stream services going on here.
In any event, on the legitimacy front what StreamSmart present on their website isn’t very convincing.
Even if you ignore every other aspect of the vStream TV opportunity, this alone drags the entire business opportunity over into pyramid scheme territory.
Sounds to me like the "If you think about it, every company is a pyramid!" argument from MLMs to justify people calling it a pyramid scheme.Quote:
because of my quest to bypass cable and satellite which are the real ripoff scams in my opinion.
Also just by Googling 'vStream TV' nothing comes up other than the BehindMLM review. Not sketchy at all.
First I want to thank you for having this website and allowing all of us to get different views on a particular MLM. It is good to see the pros and the cons. For full disclosure I did sign up as a distributor, because it was free and gave me a chance to get some more details about the company.
My main concern was not the cost of the box, (that's another topic on another day) but the legality of the product offering. The box in itself is legal as long as the end-user does not use it to access illegal content. So what is illegal content? Anybody with common sense would say anything you didn't pay for. Coming from the telecommunications industry and also having a best friend in the cable industry there were a few red flags when I saw free content.
We all know that distributors of content should be paying the creators of that content, that's why we have copyright laws. However in this wonderful day and age of technology there are several loopholes one of them being streaming. I am not talking about peer-to-peer streaming which is where we share downloaded files. Downloading a file is in violation of copyright law if you did not pay for that file or receive expressed written permission.
If you're streaming on your computer or DVR and even a portion of that file is on your computer it is called pseudo-streaming which is also in violation of copyright law if you did not pay for the content or if the distributor did not market the content as free.
Now we have other devices on the market that do not store files, so what do we do with this technology? Of course as a free-market society companies will look to fill a void. So until the law can catches up with technology we are where we are.
In the EU streaming is legal, in Canada and the U.S. it is legal to a point.
Business Insider asked, "..is streaming unlicensed content online illegal? Jim Gibson, director of the Intellectual Property Institute at the University of Richmond law school said,
"When the user downloads even part of a file — called "pseudo-streaming" — it counts as a copy of copyrighted material, which is illegal. And when the user streams content as a "public performance" — namely, when it's shown to a substantial number of people outside the normal family circle and its close acquaintances — it also constitutes a copyright violation.
Outside of these cases, accessing unlicensed streamed content is generally legal."
In the case of Aereo, the Supreme Court saw content was captured and stored on Aereo servers and then streamed to the customer and rebroadcast without the permission of the content providers. Aereo also provided DVRs to they customers to temporarily store content. The court also saw Aereo as acting like a cable company since they charged for the services, this is part of the reason they lost their case.
Readers of your forum will need to decide for themselves as you have clearly articulated. And I do appreciate everything that you have posted here as it has caused me for the first time in my life to read a Supreme Court case and dive deep into a particular end of an industry to understand how it works.
I have attached the links for your readers to read and decide for themselves.
Streaming is legal in EU for the end user - Streaming movies and tv shows for free is legal | BGR
Streaming legal in Canada - Stream On?: How Canadian Law Views Online Streaming Video - Michael Geist
Streaming USA - Are Streaming Sites Legal? - Business Insider
Aereo Supreme Court case - http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions...3-461_l537.pdf
Hiya and welcome to REALSCAM.com LynnBermann
With most of the discussion focused on the legal / not legal aspect of the service being offered by VStreamtv, it's all too easy to overlook the fact VStream is a multi level marketing company, meaning it's survival depends on its' ability to attract and retain members who are willing to pay for the privilege of selling its' services.
* As was pointed out by the OP in this thread, VStream is being promoted on the MMG HYIP ponzi forum which will cost it in terms of legitimate members
* It's being promoted by notorious serial HYIP ponzi pimp David Sherman who doesn't do "legitimate" businesses - an association which will undoubtedly scare away even more potential legitimate members
* The legality of accessing streaming services being questionable will further restrict the number of potential recruits
* The obvious price discrepancy between what VStreamtv is offering and similar boxes and services will need to be overcome by anyone attempting to market VStreamtv
* The complexity of upgrading the software to maintain the available service, much less maximize its' potential will further restrict the potential marketplace
* Anyone who has ever been involved in attempting to access streaming video / tv / movies for free will know how easy it is for the provider to make the box and/or the software redundant, which requires updating the "box" software
IM(very)HO, putting aside the potential legal problems, VStreamtv, by its' very nature will only be attractive to a very limited number of customers, which means anyone considering joining to market its' services will not only have to overcome the obvious difficulties in a single operator finding sufficient retail customers to justify the time and effort when they are competing with the already established big players in the industry, but, will have to overcome the elephant in the room, the obvious "endless chain recruiting" / pyramid scheme aspects of the VStreamtv compensation plan;
As Oz from BEHINDMLM.com puts it:
BOTTOM LINE: Is the VStreamtv "opportunity" so potentially lucrative it's worth taking the risk ??Quote:
The matrix component of vStream TV’s compensation plan by itself is a chain-recruitment model.
Affiliates buy in for $49.95 a month and are then paid to recruit new affiliates who do the same. Through the matrix no retail activity takes place, with all revenue and commissions paid out sourced from monthly fees charged to affiliates.
Even if you ignore every other aspect of the vStream TV opportunity, this alone drags the entire business opportunity over into pyramid scheme territory.
Pending some major transparency efforts on vStream TV’s behalf, starting with company structure, management and answering the question of legality regarding the StreamSmart boxes they are reselling, I can’t see anyone taking the company too seriously.
Approach with caution.
Thank you, well noted. :RpS_smile:
Welcome to the site Lynn. I want to break this into two posts one for the opportunity and one for the legality as with a lot of things MLM/Pyramid there seems to be a disinformation campaign being waged that affiliates repeat as if it were the gospel.Quote:
Originally Posted by LynnBermann
First off all this is a business built on stealing other people's work. It is the same as eating in a restaurant and not paying the check, taking home office supplies from your employer, or padding a contract with the government and bilking the taxpayers. Theft is theft. The "free market" void is not filled by stealing, it is satisfied either by consumers that choose not to purchase products and services or innovators who deliver content legally at a better price and/or quality.
Vstream is selling a box that costs $100 everywhere else for $300 based on the "opportunity". Good luck with that, especially considering other companies are pulling the same stunt and the GRQ population is limited. Absent significant retail sales to people not participating in the scheme what you are left with is an illegal pyramid scheme.
A "business" selling a commodity product for 3X based on endless chain recruiting and stealing other people's work, what's not to like?
From the article you posted. Every one of the sites on the internet that is stealing people's work and posting it is breaking the law. Worldwide these sites are continually shut down, regardless of whether streaming by an end user is legal or no. Vstream is trying to build a legit business utilizing content that is there illegally?
These secondary sites, however, where the content actually exists, do violate copyright law. But they're not usually as big as the primary sites, which aggregate unlicensed content. "If you have to choose your battles, you're more likely to go after the bottlenecks. They give you the most access to infringing content," Gibson said.
Read more: Are Streaming Sites Legal? - Business Insider
Suddenly everyone is reading Supreme court decisions, they are either all reading the wrong copy, or as I suspect they are all repeating the same talking points they got at a sales promo somewhere.Quote:
Originally Posted by JOIN-FREE
The decision was 6-3, it was hardly a "split decision" which we often see as 5-4 along party lines. It has what it takes for future courts to reference in deciding similar cases, so it is not a "gray" area as people pimping this are claiming. As I read it, "downloading" was not the issue before the court, the "streaming" was. I would expect future legislation to further clarify current language in the applicable laws.
JUSTICE BREYER delivered the opinion of the Court.
We must decide whether respondent Aereo, Inc., infringes this exclusive right by selling its subscribers a technologically complex service that allows them to watch television
programs over the Internet at about the same time as the programs are broadcast over the air. We conclude that it does.
In other words, Aereo’s system creates a subscriber-specific copy—that is, a “personal” copy—of the subscriber’s program of choice.
(The subscriber may instead direct Aereo to stream the program at a later time, but that aspect of Aereo’s service is not before us.)
The streaming continues, a mere few seconds behind the over-the-air broadcast, until the subscriber has received the entire show.
When two subscribers wish to watch the same program, Aereo’s system activates two separate antennas and saves two separate copies of the program in two separate folders. It then streams the show to the subscribers through two separate transmissions—each from the subscriber’s personal copy.
This case requires us to answer two questions: First, in operating in the manner described above, does Aereo “perform” at all? And second, if so, does Aereo do so “publicly”?
An entity that engages in activities like Aereo’s performs.
Congress also enacted the Transmit Clause, which specifies that an entity performs publicly when it “transmit[s] . . . a performance . . . to the public.”
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions...3-461_l537.pdf
Breyer, writing for the majority, concludes that “when read in light of its purpose, the Act is unmistakable: An entity that engages in activities like Aereo performs.” In short, we’re not precisely sure what the Copyright Act regulates, but whatever it is, Aereo’s doing it. If a service “looks like” a cable company, it – and not its users – is doing the performing. Symposium: Aereo copyright decision creates uncertainty for the Cloud : SCOTUSblog
The Aereo Court took on both issues. In assessing whether Aereo “performs” at all under the Copyright Act, the Court set up a dichotomy: cases in which an entity performs or transmits, and cases in which an entity “merely supplies equipment that allows others to do so.” Without any express answers in the Act on this question, the Court found the language of the Act to be unclear. However, when “read in light of its purpose, the Act is unmistakable: An entity that engages in activities like Aereo’s performs.”
Symposium: Preferring substance over form and nature over manner, Supreme Court finds that Aereo runs afoul of the purposes of the Copyright Act : SCOTUSblog
================================================== ===============
While I am no attorney it seems clear to me that the Aereo case and Vstream et. al. are all doing some version of the same thing. With the kicker being Vstream is doing it with content already there illegally. The risk is asymmetrical with a lot of pyramid schemes and VS is no different. The most likely outcome is someone wastes a few hundred bucks and ends up with a fancy paperweight in a few months when the technology changes. For someone that does really well there is nothing stopping any content provider from suing them in civil court or the government bringing criminal charges.
This is an interesting thought for business owners looking at a Vstream type system, full article linked below.
Mr. Gagliardi will dispatch as many as 800 investigators to roam big cities and small towns around the country looking for establishments that are showing the fight illegally.
“There’s going to be a lot of people who get caught,” he promises.
Fear not if you happen to be in a bar with an illegal hookup. You won’t get in trouble for just watching the fight. Nor do Mr. Gagliardi’s investigators have the legal standing to pull the plug right then and there. Instead, they take photos to prove an illegal telecast has occurred, Then Mr. Gagliardi calls in the lawyers and sics them on the bar owners.
“You catch them after the fact. You can only deal with them to sue them,” he says.
The most common method of theft is to bring in a cable box from home into your place of business and order the pay-per-view, which costs $99.99. The risk is facing a lawsuit seeking $100,000 in damages. Some bars have even gone under for stealing fights. Mr. Gagliardi has little sympathy.
Guarding the Pacquiao-Mayweather Pay-Per-View Strongbox - WSJ
It appears UK authorities have been a lot more proactive in past months than their US counterparts have been in heading off the burgeoning "piracy box" industry.
http://imageshack.com/a/img923/937/JLEicy.png
TorrentFreak.com
http://imageshack.com/a/img922/7756/T0aRYV.png
TorrentFreak.com
http://imageshack.com/a/img921/9655/Z2AsGi.png
TorrentFreak.com