popular independent service distributing videos to Vevo and then you start receiving royalty reports missing millions of views upon your videos?
Will you keep insisting on getting genuine and properly revised data, or will you, without pangs of conscience, send the doctored reports followed by significantly smaller revenues over to your clients?
One thing's for sure: dealing with some of those famous and well-respected companies and brands must not lead to taking at face value, or setting your hopes up way too high - not until you see the consequences. This is our story.
Vevo was an on-demand advertising supported video streaming service, owned and financed by a few major labels, formally managed by Vevo LLC headquartered in Delaware and New York. Vevo consisted of two major parts:
ALSO READ:.:: How a joint venture between Sony Music Entertainment and Universal Music Group used to treat its clients .:: Then and now: The reasons why you should not send your video to Vevo anymore .:: Meet the New York based company suspected of unauthorized use of around 1,000 music videos on Vevo Throughout the period 2012-2015, our company VIDYPS 79 d.o.o. acted as a music distribution service with the aim of connecting its clients with Vevo by enabling artists and labels to upload music videos to Vevo and its syndication partners with the help of the company's own service, Blue2Digital. YouTube was by far the most significant partner of Vevo's and there were many clients of ours who only paid attention to how their videos were doing on YouTube. Some of them didn't even know about Vevo's own video service on Vevo.com. As you may presume from the aforementioned, for all that time, Vevo was supposed to be performing a very simple task. All they had to do was count the video views generated on Vevo.com, gather them together with the views provided by other syndication partners (including YouTube) and eventually, present the royalty reports based on the total number of views. Counting video streams is a real-time process and it must represent the authentic viewers and their IP addresses. The biggest challenge one could face is distinguish the genuine (regular) views from those treated as gamed (fake, robotic etc.). If a company intends to host a video service, it must provide a reliable tracking software to analyze the website (or app) visitors and determine the regularity of the corresponding video views. Whether this software is a product of its own or provided by a 3-rd party service, the company must guarantee that it is reliable and trustworthy. If the company is not capable of counting streams properly and it still insists on hosting videos, it will bite off more that it can chew. This will consequently produce legal effects that cannot be ignored. In April 2015, we began receiving royalty reports that did not reflect the actual number of views we could count on Vevo.com. Of course, it did affect the amount Vevo was supposed to pay out and it was significantly smaller than it should have been. Millions of video views were missing (this especially goes for the most valuable ones made by the viewers in the United States) and we, as a socially responsible company, refused to send doctored reports over to our clients. Instead of providing us with genuine data, which we, adamantly, were insisting on, Vevo decided to teach us a lesson. In May 2015, as their "response" to our enquiry, Vevo took down the videos distributed by Blue2Digital and kept them offline for two weeks. During that time, they didn't reply to our emails or phone calls, so we couldn't tell our clients what was going on.
.:: Introduction: Scammers in the music industry .:: Why did VEVO actually shut down its on-demand video streaming website and apps? .:: Should we expect the Government to address issues related to one's fraudulent activity? .:: Meet the guys from New York who fabricate invoices, court decisions, official corporate, federal, state and court documents .:: Meet the New York based company suspected of unauthorized use of around 1,000 music videos on Vevo .:: Copyright infringement committed by Vevo LLC, MarvMent LLC and John De'Bey a.k.a. Sean Thurman .:: Merlin Network - Are they intent on taking the control of the flow of revenues shared between the music platforms, indie artists and labels? .:: Meet the guys from New York suspected of misinforming their clients on the actual status of resellers indirectly distributing videos to Vevo, submission of incorrect information and making promises about guaranteed numbers of views during the period 2014-2015 .:: How a joint venture between Sony Music Entertainment and Universal Music Group used to treat its clients .:: The mystery of a letter allegedly written by a New York law firm partner in October 2015 .:: Complaint against TD Bank related to approving a wire transfer fraud .:: Complaint against JPMorgan Chase Bank related to approving a wire transfer fraud .:: PicRights Ltd. and Law Firm of Higbee & Associates seeking enormously high damages for imagery allegedly being the subject of dispute .:: Meet the first Assamese singer who faked tens of millions of views on Vevo .:: Is it possible to report cybercrime in India or not? .:: A letter to Blue2Digital clients regarding the issue with Vevo .:: Then and now: The reasons why you should not send your video to Vevo anymore