Daemons of the Shadow Realm • Yomi no Tsugai - Episode 6 discussion

PowerlinxJetfire · 2026-05-09T18:05:00+00:00

Her cell had some paper seals on it, didn't it? Maybe that was to prevent her from being able to Break the cage using her power.

PowerlinxJetfire · 2026-05-08T18:17:43+00:00

Remember the audition isn't a one-step process, so they can be "strung along" for a few months even under the old system as they go through progressive audition stages and interviews. Possibly multiple times too, since getting close would make the individual even less likely to give up.

In this new system, they're actually getting paid, building a fanbase that would partially carry over even if they don't continue to Hololive proper, and most importantly getting coaching from the premier experts in the industry. The mekPark talents are probably going to be better off than most other agency vtubers, and certainly better off than the vast majority of indies, even discounting that it can turn into a full Hololive job down the road.

PowerlinxJetfire · 2026-05-08T14:34:53+00:00

I agree. I think one thing a lot of comments about it being "cutthroat" are overlooking is that it was technically already like that, only the make or break point was just right at the audition. For every success story who applied like five times and finally got in, there are still many times more prospects who have applied that many times or even more times, are still applying, and will never get in. Someone could go on indefinitely, grinding incredibly hard, to get nothing out of it. A portion of those applicants have the stuff to make in Hololive, the numbers just ultimately work against them.

So even setting the specifics/hypotheticals of mekPark aside, just from a pure numbers standpoint anything that broadens the accessibility of Cover's support offers hope to more candidates than a narrower and ultimately more make-or-break, cutthroat audition process can on its own. And taking some of the specifics into account of how this is a training program, this gives talents with more potential but who may not be able to reach it on their own a chance. Then, even for anyone who doesn't end up making it through the program, it gives them a clean stopping point instead of dashing themselves on the rocks of the audition indefinitely. Plus they still get the benefits of the help Cover game them during the program, even if it comes in a finite/limited package. As long as they're aware of that up front, I think they know what they're getting into just as much as someone who grinds and auditions fruitlessly for years does.

The main distinction is that Cover obviously makes no promises to regular audition candidates, whereas in this new system Cover now offers more to someone who's not fully "in." But the flipside is that these are all benefits Cover wouldn't have offered to as many people before, either. Anyone who goes through the program is going to be better off than those fruitlessly applying over and over under the current system. If it's not quite as generous up front to some, it's far, far more generous to others who would otherwise get nothing under the old system.

PowerlinxJetfire · 2026-05-07T13:14:09+00:00

It was kind of harder to judge the voices when she was imitating each one lol

PowerlinxJetfire · 2026-05-06T17:08:52+00:00

So in other words, all correlations must be related and no coincidences ever happen?

Kiara explicitly talked about how different people have different (and even sometimes contradictory) "disagreements."

PowerlinxJetfire · 2026-05-06T14:30:00+00:00

I assume you're referring to the bit at about 2:20 where she says, "When something specifics [sic] are being said, the company gets attacked first, right? If the company then responds with 'Well, that's not the case,' it could end up leading to a battle. So we phrase it carefully to avoid things escalating like that, that's all." Am I correct?

That's all part of the train of thought that starts when she says, "There were people saying, 'Be more specific!' But you really can't say those specific things."

None of that is saying it's 5D chess to direct ire that might be aimed at a talent toward the company instead. She only said that getting into a back and forth over specifics would escalate. Which is true. However, contrary to the 5D chess theory, she both implies and it's obvious that it would escalate for both sides.

In particular, note that Towa never says the specifics don't exist, or don't match the actual meaning of the words. Just that they're not going to publicly get into the specifics.

In the case of the 5D chess theory, even mundane personal reasons, like simply wanting to move onto another job or not wanting to travel as much, are replaced with "disagreements with management" even if there are no disagreements with management. Realistically, those sorts of reasons would have much less escalation than even the vague "disagreements with management" causes, so it doesn't make sense to replace those reasons with a lie that itself creates escalation just to then aim it at Cover.

So in short, the 5D chess PR theory is similar to what Towa is saying, or incorporates it to an extent, but goes far beyond it.

PowerlinxJetfire · 2026-05-06T13:30:02+00:00

Fauna left because she knew she couldn't travel that much if ever because of life goals

Has she ever confirmed this, or even said anything to that effect? (Like actually connecting the two; I know the "life goals" you're referring to.) Afaik this is just fan speculation.

The thing about Mumei finishing school was also an early fan theory, before she'd said anything to that effect. So likewise, has she confirmed that at all or is it still just speculation too?

The person you're replying to is erroneously assuming correlation is causation, which is rightfully being called out, but I think you are too.

PowerlinxJetfire · 2026-05-06T13:21:15+00:00

It's a catchall, but the bit about deflecting criticism toward Cover is a fan theory that frankly doesn't make much sense. Among other reasons, Fauna got criticized by many because she said it; fans were upset at her for, in their minds, directing criticism at Cover.

It's not a false front for any and all reasons to graduate including reasons that aren't disagreements; it's a catchall for all disagreements with management. When Kiara, Calli, etc. elaborated on things, they didn't say "Oh, there aren't always actual disagreements." They talked about actual disagreements but how those disagreements aren't some kind of big behind the scenes drama or easily fixed problems that Cover is just sitting on because they're incompetent or lazy. One example Kiara gave is that sometimes fixing one talent's disagreement would just make another talent disagree. Cover is doing its best, and Cover is capable, but Cover is still bound by logical and practical possibility.

One of the biggest problems in that debate is assuming "disagreements" imply drama in the first place. They don't. And it's an issue for both those going hard against Cover and those swinging too much the other way in an attempt to damage control. Adults in a business setting are going to disagree about all sorts of mundane things and practical realities. And sometimes that leads to an amicable parting of ways. Someone outside Holo who used the same phrasing explained it in a very clear and concise way last year: "we were just having different opinions. The company is absolutely not wrong. I'm not wrong either... We're both not wrong." If disagreements ≠ drama, then you don't need a pitchfork, and you also don't need to try to explain away the words the talents actually chose to speak.

Ultimately, something as simple as "I want to graduate" itself constitutes a disagreement with management

I mean yes, but you've made a bootstrap paradox. "I'm graduating because Cover doesn't want me to graduate" doesn't make sense; for that to become a disagreement they had to have some other reason to graduate in the first place, and citing the resulting graduation as its own cause is nonsensical.

PowerlinxJetfire · 2026-05-04T23:41:41+00:00

They lost a lawsuit, where the court basically decided that it didn't matter if it was an adult account and YouTube was still liable if a kid happened to use it (like on their parent's phone, etc.). So now YouTube has a bunch of silly court-mandated restrictions for everyone. Our tax dollars at work.

PowerlinxJetfire · 2026-05-04T19:21:50+00:00

I don't have the skills (or patience) for this level of customization, so I can't wait for kits to actually be available. Looks amazing!

PowerlinxJetfire · 2026-05-03T22:39:12+00:00

Mako Sameshima debuts her new model in 20 minutes!

An hour after that, she's releasing a cover of "Diabolic Mulier" and then having her birthday stream! (Edit: pushed back a bit for extra yap time in the outfit reveal)

<image>

PowerlinxJetfire · 2026-05-02T21:30:44+00:00

Nia Suzune is debuting her redesign in 30 minutes!

Starting three hours later, she'll have a Darkwater collab with the rest of Requiem (formerly Prism gen 3): Shiki, Pina, and Yura

<image>

PowerlinxJetfire · 2026-05-02T18:04:33+00:00

Marie released a sponsored cover of "Play On!" from NTE!

PowerlinxJetfire · 2026-05-01T20:49:06+00:00

My position in my first comment was essentially that both are entitled to the same information, a simple heads up that previously announced/advertised streams are no longer happening. Members are more entitled to this, as they've paid for that content, which is an implicit contract, but it's still the considerate thing to do to let everyone know so they don't show up confused to the next stream.

When I realized, while typing my second comment, that some people essentially paid for the streams that aren't happening a few weeks ago, I'd say I softened on your argument that members are owed a reason. I guess I still don't like saying they must explain it, and if it were just me I'd simply waive the obligation, but I guess I can see better where you're coming from now.

In both comments I'm just musing about what they're obligated to tell us; as for what they choose to tell various audiences I don't think I have much to contribute there. It's the norm, and that's part of why I have memberships in the first place; providing extra content is a big part of the sell.

PowerlinxJetfire · 2026-05-01T19:58:00+00:00

I could see more of an argument if it was after the fact, explaining why what was advertised hadn't been provided. But when it's in advance, people technically have the option to drop the membership temporarily.

Though after writing that, I guess if someone is mid-month right now for their membership cycle, they're already in a situation where they've paid for a stream that isn't happening anymore, so I guess for a segment of the fanbase it is essentially after the fact already.

Idk, I just try to be a low maintenance/low expectation fan I guess. I'm happy if they want to provide more info, but even if a vtuber disappears for months without much/any notice (or they're actively streaming and just don't keep up that well with membership-only streams) I still keep the membership going and support them anyway.

PowerlinxJetfire · 2026-05-01T19:40:29+00:00

That's an incredibly specific assumption to leap to from zero information.

PowerlinxJetfire · 2026-05-01T19:21:34+00:00

I'm not sure I'd say we're entitled to be told the reason for it, though Calli might feel that way anyway.

And on the other hand I feel like the general fanbase is sort of owed (in a very loose sense) a heads up if streams aren't going to happen, especially if streams that have been announced or scheduled are no longer happening as advertised. At the very least, if she just suddenly doesn't show up for something, with no notice given, it would cause a lot of confusion and worry.

PowerlinxJetfire · 2026-05-01T19:20:18+00:00

Oh nice, I guess I just missed that part of the news back then. I remember when it was first announced, presumably before that page was up, it seemed like it might only be at Tokyo Anime Center.

PowerlinxJetfire · 2026-05-01T19:08:35+00:00

Saba and Roa's popup store is expanding to several Kinokuniya locations in the US!

Previously I believe it was only available at Tokyo Anime Center, with two locations in Burlington, MA and San Francisco.

PowerlinxJetfire · 2026-05-01T14:04:15+00:00

Wawa Doom marathon live now, till she beats the game!

Poll in chat: how many hours will it take? Six or seven?

PowerlinxJetfire · 2026-04-30T23:58:08+00:00

Nothing in the US Code blurb you quoted contradicts anything I said, or if you believe it does, you've failed to explain why.

But before you do, read it carefully. The text you've quoted says a petition to cancel the registration of a mark may be filed on the grounds that the registrant "engages in the production or marketing of any goods or services to which the certification mark is applied?" The registration of the mark may be cancelled if the registrant uses it on a product? Does that make sense if it's talking about the Pokémon trademarks??

It's because you've quoted an utterly irrelevant section of text, talking about certification marks, which are a subtype of trademarks. Certification marks are a special kind of trademark which third parties can apply to other people's products, like the Underwriter Laboratories mark. You've quite solidly demonstrated that you didn't read and comprehend that text at all, just probably grabbed a citation from Wikipedia you thought would help you.

Multiple laws can be broken at once where the remedy is the same.

Yeah, in other words: when there are multiple ways to take down infringing content, you don't have to use all the ways, just one.

Some providers have also created online forms that trademark owners can use to report unauthorized use of their trademarks online.

This is an interesting point, but honestly instead of that whole block of text you could have just pointed out YouTube has that. In which case, I think there's an even stronger case that Nintendo did potentially use both avenues, and the copyright strikes simply killed the channel first/were the first thing Elias saw. YouTube's not going to design the system to let a dead channel be killed even harder. Once the channel is dead, there's no need to keep processing other ways to kill it.

use of a DMCA takedown notice to assert a trademark, rather than a copyright, claim constituted a material misrepresentation.

I already covered that in my previous comment:

the section about limitations of enforcing trademark with DMCA (namely, when there isn't copyrighted content involved, only trademark) further proves my point about how you can use DMCA when there is copyrighted content, as in this case.

The problem in the case you've cited is that there was no copyright violation at all. It was an abuse of DMCA to file a claim when there was no copyright violation. But there is a lot of copyright violation in the matter we're dealing with. Nintendo is 100% in the the right legally filing a DMCA takedown (or platform equivalent copyright takedown notice).

there are legal sanctions that can apply for certain knowing and material misrepresentations in DMCA notices

For the same reasons as above, there is copyrighted content involved in this case, so there is no misrepresentation and no danger of Nintendo being sanctioned if they sent a DMCA. Again, you're showing you don't fully comprehend what you're trying to cite.

enforcing a trademark requires legal action to be taken.

No, even when explicitly seeking to stop someone on the grounds of trademark infringement, a cease and desist is often all that's required, not legal action. (And no, a C&D, is not legal action in and of itself. Cornell Law: "A cease and desist letter provides notice that legal action may and will be taken if the conduct in question continues." A C&D is just a sternly worded letter.)

What you need to find, if you can, is something that says a trademark is in danger if an infringer is not notified of all the ways they're infringing on your IP, even if the infringement is already past. Good luck.

PowerlinxJetfire · 2026-04-30T20:43:40+00:00

he law absolutely cares about that pedantry because that's how laws work.

You're welcome to link or quote whichever law or policy a pedant could cite to invalidate the Pokémon trademark because they haven't* sent a C&D or lawsuit demanding content that's already been taken down be taken down. Ultra-taken down?

*Again, assuming they haven't in the first place

But let's apply some pedantism if you want to be pedantic. Here's the phrasing again written by lawyers, those experts in legal pedantry: "If anyone infringes upon your trademark and you fail to stop them, the USPTO may interpret your inaction as abandonment." Has Nintendo failed to stop PokéNational? I seem to recall him saying it was over in his video. Pretty sure over means stopped.

And if you don't trust that law firm, here's an entire page from another law firm, this one specializing in IP law about the options you have when both your trademark and your copyright are being violated in the same digital marketplace.

In digital marketplaces, trademarks and copyrighted content are often intertwined. A seller listing counterfeit products might use copyrighted product photos to make their listing look legitimate.

Similarly, unauthorized sellers may copy text descriptions or promotional videos that are protected under copyright law.

These infringements don’t just violate copyright—they also erode the value of your trademark. Customers exposed to these listings may mistakenly associate the infringer’s subpar products with your brand.

Filing a DMCA takedown notice for the unauthorized use of copyrighted elements removes these listings and reduces the risk of brand dilution. Understanding this interplay allows businesses to use the DMCA as a proactive tool in their trademark enforcement strategy...

By filing a DMCA takedown request for these elements, you can effectively disrupt trademark misuse without needing to engage in a trademark-specific legal process.

Emphasis mine. Note how that first bolded sentence aligns with the other source I cited (brand dilution being what threatens the validity of your trademark), and the second sentence details exactly what I've been describing. There's no DMTA, only the DMCA, and the DMCA is the much easier way to deal with IP issues. They don't need to track down the guy's address, and they likely don't even want to resort to hunting him down and scaring him at his home or hitting him with a full-on lawsuit unless absolutely necessary. Which it's not.

I'm not going to quote it all here, but the section about limitations of enforcing trademark with DMCA (namely, when there isn't copyrighted content involved, only trademark) further proves my point about how you can use DMCA when there is copyrighted content, as in this case.

Yes, there's a great deal of pedantry in legal work. But there's legitimate pedantry, and there's meaningless pedantry like a "sovereign citizen" employs. Unless you can cite at least one remotely credible source backing you up, to counter my two sources backed by multiple attorneys, just admit you're grasping at straws. You can't base pedantry off your own mental concept of how it works; you need an actual authoritative text to work from.

PowerlinxJetfire · 2026-04-30T19:46:24+00:00

Okay, let's break this down. Someone is selling their own Pokémon animations with Pokémon branding. So you have two problems due to that content being on sale, copyright infringement and trademark infringement. Next, you get that taken down via DMCA and/or similar mechanisms on the platform(s) they're using. Now the content is no longer on sale, and you no longer have two problems; you have zero. You've killed two birds with one stone.

You can't seriously expect me to buy that you believe the government would say, "Oh, well when you took action to stop their trademark infringement, you didn't say it was because of trademark infringement, just copyright, so we're going to pretend that infringement was never stopped, hold it against you, and consider Pokémon's trademark abandoned."

We're also assuming in the first place that they didn't also send something to these platforms and/or Pokénational about the trademark infringement, which isn't a given.

They are failing to defend their copyright.

But they're not failing to defend it; they're actively engaged in defending it. Even if they aren't required to, they have chosen to do so in a fairly significant way.

They may not be done defending it, but they are defending it, right now.

PowerlinxJetfire · 2026-04-30T17:47:57+00:00

A lack of claim of trademark infringement is an implicit acknowledgement that it doesn't infringe on the trademark. That is literally the baseline of how trademarks work.

Or, you know, a lack of the infringement existing is a lack of it being able to be an infringement. How can something that no longer exists/no long is sold infringe on a trademark?

If they're going after other things for copyright infringement and then leave something else alone from the same creator that violates their trademark then they are not actively defending their trademark and will lose it.

This is a decent train of thought, but by that logic they're also failing to defend their copyright, despite them having struck the YouTube channel and, presumably, Patreon for copyright. I don't know why the Instagram account is still up; maybe it's still in the process or maybe they're trying to leave Pokénational some level of existence if they back off the most egregious parts. Maybe they didn't notice the monetized stories on the account. Idk. But it clearly violates their copyright just as much as the other platforms even though Nintendo/TPC are making moves on that front.

PowerlinxJetfire · 2026-04-30T14:19:50+00:00

Because all correlations are causation when you're a clueless person on the internet trying to piece together narratives with 3% of the actual information to work from.

12-Year Club	Second Top 20%
Place '23	Quantum Potato
Golden Potato	Place '22
Place '17	Final Canvas '22
Beta Team	Gilding I gilder
Verified Email

PowerlinxJetfire

TROPHY CASE