SpaceMedia

Payment Processing Delays

Multiple artists report extended periods without royalty receipt despite accumulated streaming activity. One distributor described accumulating over 100,000 streams across three months without receiving payment statements or royalty transfers. Artists tracking consistent monthly streaming metrics report zero financial disbursements across timelines ranging from three to seven months.

“I distribute my music through their platform under the account name DDVault, and despite gaining over 100,000 streams, I have not received any royalty payments or even a single statement in the past three months.”

A separate case documents six to seven months of continuous streaming with no corresponding payments, ultimately requiring payment processor intervention through chargeback mechanisms to recover subscription fees. Artists attempting to verify payment status encounter absent statistical dashboards, preventing independent verification of streaming data or accrued royalties. Email inquiries regarding payment status yield minimal or absent responses across documented cases.

The platform advertises 24-hour payout capabilities but operational reality shows significantly extended timelines. Payment processing infrastructure remains undisclosed in public documentation, with no visible payment processor partnerships mentioned on the platform or in user reports. The anti-fraud policy permits three-month payment delays on second strikes and allows royalty escrow holds extending 24 to 60 months following account restrictions.

Five documented cases from April 2024 through January 2026 show payment delays ranging from three to seven months. Resolution rates approach zero percent for artists reporting non-payment, with most cases remaining unresolved at time of documentation. Artists seeking payment verification find no accessible statistics or payment history within platform dashboards.

Account Termination Patterns

Content rejection processes involve extended review periods followed by categorical denials. One artist described two months of revision requests for meditation music before receiving final rejection based on content category restrictions. The revision process consumed multiple rounds of metadata adjustments before platform determination that meditation content violated unspecified distribution policies.

Artists attempting to remove single rejected releases report platform actions removing entire catalogs instead of individual items. Users describe requesting deletion of one album only to find all distributed content removed from the platform without warning or confirmation. This pattern affects artists seeking to withdraw specific content while maintaining active catalog presence.

Release content becomes locked within platform systems following submission, preventing artists from deleting materials even when distribution remains incomplete. Artists report inability to access removal functions, leaving content indefinitely attached to platform accounts regardless of distribution status. This creates situations where artists cannot migrate content to alternative distributors without platform cooperation.

ISRC code modifications occur without artist authorization during review processes. One artist documented platform staff changing pre-assigned ISRC codes and subsequently claiming the original codes represented copyright infringement. The modification happened to one track within a multi-track EP, with remaining tracks publishing successfully under original metadata.

Eight documented cases from June 2024 through January 2026 show termination or removal patterns affecting meditation producers, multi-release catalogs, and artists attempting content withdrawal. The platform provides standardized responses without case-specific explanations when artists request clarification on rejection reasoning.

Customer Support Response

Support availability and responsiveness shows distinct pre-purchase versus post-purchase patterns. Artists describe rapid, friendly communication during inquiry and onboarding phases. Following payment processing, response characteristics change substantially. One white-label customer reported over one month of unanswered support emails after subscribing to platform services and onboarding multiple clients.

“Before payment, they are friendly and reply super fast. They seem professional. It’s all a lie to get your money. The second your payment clears, they DISAPPEAR.”

Live chat support requires Premium tier subscription despite platform advertising 24/7 availability. The contact page explicitly restricts live chat access to paid members, directing free-tier users exclusively to email support channels. Response times for email inquiries vary from several weeks to complete silence across documented cases.

Platform staffing appears limited, with one artist noting “only two assistants available, and they seem to be infrequently online” when attempting to resolve technical issues. Artists seeking assistance with release problems, metadata errors, or account issues report minimal human interaction, receiving automated responses that fail to address specific circumstances.

Refund requests encounter categorical denials even within 24 hours of purchase. One artist requesting refund one day after payment received response citing “all sales are final” policy and noting that “each refund incurs a cost to us.” The artist indicated considering legal action following refund denial.

Twelve documented support experiences from April 2024 through January 2026 show response gaps ranging from two weeks to complete non-response. Artists with white-label subscriptions describe particularly severe support gaps, as unresolved distribution issues for their clients create cascading reputation damage affecting their own business operations. No documented cases show successful support resolution for payment inquiries or account access problems.

Distribution Speed Performance

The platform advertises distribution timelines of three to seven days depending on subscription tier. Operational reality shows substantial variance from advertised windows. Artists purchasing Premium tier “fast approval” services for €19.99 with seven-day distribution guarantees report two-week delays while releases remain in “Waiting Approval” status.

Content review processes extend across weeks to months rather than days. Artists describe continuous revision requests spanning eight weeks before receiving categorical rejections. The revision cycle involves metadata adjustments, artwork modifications, and content categorization changes without clear progression toward approval or definitive rejection.

Distribution to advertised platforms occurs inconsistently when releases achieve approval. Artists report music appearing on streaming services while platform dashboards continue displaying “DRAFT” status, preventing metadata edits or content management. This creates situations where artists cannot correct errors despite music being publicly accessible to listeners.

“They will send your album to stores like Spotify and Apple Music WITHOUT TELLING YOU, using the wrong info (wrong metadata). But in your dashboard, it will still say ‘DRAFT’ so you can’t edit or control anything.”

Platform coverage claims reference 200+ stores including major streaming services. User verification of actual distribution reach remains limited, with most documented experiences focusing on approval delays rather than successful multi-platform deployment. Artists completing distribution report no statistical tracking, preventing confirmation of which platforms actually received content.

Six documented distribution experiences from April 2024 through January 2026 show approval timelines ranging from two weeks to two months, exceeding advertised three-to-seven-day windows by factors of three to eight. Artists purchasing expedited processing experience similar delays to free-tier users despite paying premium fees specifically for accelerated timelines.

White Label Platform Issues

The platform offers white-label distribution software allowing labels and distributors to operate branded platforms powered by SpaceMedia infrastructure. Customers purchasing white-label services report systematic operational failures affecting their client relationships and business reputations.

One white-label operator described building a branded platform, investing substantially in marketing and artist acquisition, then encountering cascading distribution failures. Client releases experienced rejections, incorrect uploads, and misattributed artist names appearing on streaming platforms. The operator reported “all my clients are complaining, and it’s damaging my reputation, my finances, and my company’s name.”

Support infrastructure for white-label customers shows the same post-purchase communication gaps affecting direct distribution users. White-label operators report month-long email silence from platform staff while their own clients demand resolution for distribution failures. The business model creates dual-layer damage: white-label operators lose money on platform fees while simultaneously losing clients due to unresolved technical issues.

Metadata accuracy problems appear concentrated in white-label deployments, with artists’ names, track titles, and release information appearing incorrectly on streaming platforms despite correct submission data. White-label operators cannot directly access platform systems to correct errors, requiring SpaceMedia intervention that documentation shows rarely materializes.

Three documented white-label cases from October 2025 through January 2026 show business operators experiencing client attrition, financial losses, and reputation damage stemming from platform distribution failures combined with absent technical support. Resolution rates for white-label operational problems show zero percent across documented cases, with operators describing complete inability to resolve client issues through available support channels.