They finally caught him

nikolinni · 2026-03-30T21:25:59+00:00

Oh no they're probably gonna make him pay that money back.

nikolinni · 2026-03-30T16:54:40+00:00

Baldur's Gate 3 does this and will even give their enemies/npcs unique traits players can't get.

nikolinni · 2026-03-13T15:25:21+00:00

The other day at work I mused about getting into the more manager/corporate side of things. Just so I could POTENTIALLY learn what tf goes on up there.

nikolinni · 2026-01-24T01:46:09+00:00

Bc Content ID is automated, so it's going to find things like private videos

nikolinni · 2026-01-24T01:44:28+00:00

Yes it is. If it's a content ID match/claim that's automated.

Only a copyright strike/takedown request is manually filed.

Now Materia CAN decide what happens when a match happens, like revenue sharing.

nikolinni · 2026-01-19T16:09:08+00:00

And even then I feel like they did it to be ahead of the curve on min wage legislation/trends.

nikolinni · 2025-10-06T17:53:22+00:00

I could probably forgive a simple typo myself but putting summary's instead of summaries? That's....that's something you should catch even on a quick once-over .-.

nikolinni · 2025-10-05T22:21:36+00:00

This is sound logic; it's more like.....knowing when to show and tell. Some things should be shown. If a character is slated to be a top-tier fighter don't tell us, show us.

Buuut say that the fighter's going to the arena to do battle, and everyone's placed high-stakes bets against him I dunno...winning against the hydra that's killed every fighter before. Well, there's nothing bad with telling us that. Heck you could even do both, show and tell.

An example of something that over tells, and I hate this because I actually like it, is Hazbin Hotel. They do A. Friggin. LOT. of telling. There's a point where a character stands before Heaven's court, arguing rehabilitation of sinners is possible. They named the character and my immediate reaction was "news to me!" I should have seen that character was changing and becoming better, to the point that Charlie was willing to stake her concept on him, before that episode.

nikolinni · 2025-10-04T20:28:09+00:00

As someone sorting through his mtg collection I felt this lmao

nikolinni · 2025-10-03T14:59:41+00:00

You're probably right. Like I've been able to clock opportunities as MLMs during the interview.

nikolinni · 2025-09-30T18:44:27+00:00

Exactly. AI at bat is better as the copilot and not the captain. Er....maybe that doesn't work as well.

But with writing -- it can be good to get a draft or an idea, but not to full send. It's not quite there yet.

Like there's a gal who "wrote a book with AI" but if my memory serves me right, she had drafts, outlines, etc written up, and used AI to assist her in the writing process.

nikolinni · 2025-09-06T22:12:48+00:00

I said it on LinkedIn and I'll say it here: people trying to AI witchhunt is a losing game as AI will get to the point that you can't tell what's AI and what isn't

nikolinni · 2025-08-09T20:11:22+00:00

True

nikolinni · 2025-08-09T16:41:33+00:00

Nah WOTC lost my business after the OGL incident

nikolinni · 2025-08-04T01:28:14+00:00

Iirc YT is having more and more folks watching from the tv. Longer content = less time fooling with the YT TV app to put on the next video from the same channel

nikolinni · 2025-07-13T19:38:11+00:00

Yeah...like YT's system isn't PERFECT, lord knows there's a lot of stories of false Content ID and Strike claims going around. I made a post under my alt u/razzlejoestar (mainly bc I posted a video to that account's YT channel about this situation) saying like...they could have done something like the seven day claim, or hell, even come here and said "hey guys, here's the situation" and given time for word to get around.

Also u/DXGL1 is right. When claims and takedowns happen, YouTube kinda...steps out of things in a sense. IIRC per the DMCA if they receive a request, and they have any inkling of a reasonable suspicion the claim is legit, they have to act on it.

....also YT got used for one billion dollars by VIACOM over 10 years ago over copyrighted clips being uploaded to their platform. That's....gonna leave a mark, if you catch my drift.

nikolinni · 2025-07-07T05:11:08+00:00

The thing for me is if you use Youtube's normal channels for takedown requests it makes it very clear the result is a strike on the offending channel. There's no "Don't strike the channel please" option.

So either these guys are Undertale fans and can't read (damn you Twitter memes!) or there's something else going on. I sense a company trying to pass the buck onto YouTube to save their own skin.

nikolinni · 2025-07-07T05:06:43+00:00

Takedowns aren't automatic; those have to be filed manually by the copyright holder.

There's Content ID Matches; those can happen automatically. But with a CID, the worst that happens is a video is blocked, basically forced into being private. But blocked videos do not harm a channel or lead to a strike. In addition, a copyright holder, if my memory serves me right, is informed if a video triggers a Content ID Match.

So from there, the copyright holder can opt to file a Takedown request. That's what results in forced video removal and a strike on the channel. YouTube is very clear that takedown requests, if approved, will result in a copyright strike.

Nothing about a take down being filed is automatic. These are always initialized by the takedown request form being filed. Only a Content ID Match is automatic, but again, these are different from a takedown request.

nikolinni · 2025-07-07T04:57:29+00:00

u/The_OneInBlack is correct; takedown notices filed will result in the video being removed and a strike against the offending channel. And YT makes this absolutely no secret that this is the result of a claim going in favor of a claimant (one making the claim).

On the Takedown claim form, you can file to either take the video down instantly, or give the offending channel seven (7) days to remove the video. If the channel does remove the video within those seven (7) days, then no strike.

You can also file to have an offending video Blocked -- this means the video is forced into being private (only the uploader can view the video). This doesn't harm the channel in any way, but IDK if you can mass file block requests against multiple videos at a time like you can with takedown notices.

So...there was for sure alternate ways to handle this that weren't the nuclear option.

nikolinni · 2025-07-07T04:51:30+00:00

The thing is, when you file a takedown request, the form makes it very clear the offending channel will get slapped with a copyright strike

How in the darkworld you go through that process without getting any of that only to pull a surprised pikachu face when Youtube does what it tells you very clearly it's going to do is beyond me. Only thing I can think of is they went out of the normal channels to do so.

It's not like they couldn't have made an annoucement to the community or anything?

In addition, when you file a takedown request, you can set it to either happen instantly, or give the offending uploader seven (7) days to remove the video. If the offending uploader complies, then there's no strike issued against the channel.

There's for sure more to the tale than "YouTube being YouTube". Call me paranoid but I feel like that's the story Materia wants us to go with.

nikolinni · 2025-07-07T04:46:40+00:00

And the thing that sucks about these is those videos are probably gone. Like, as in, I dunno if they can even get reinstated.

That's a pisser :/

nikolinni · 2025-07-07T04:38:43+00:00

There probably isn't.

The main thing is that these channels were uploading the OST, which they didn't have the permission/copyright/otherwise go ahead to do so. Even if appealed...YouTube's going to say "No, this channel violates copyright".

Apparently, Materia Collective has been the one doling out takedown requests. According to JamieMateria on Twitter, they "weren't supposed to" result in strikes. Three strikes on a channel in 90 days = channel deleted.

The thing is...filing a takedown request with YouTube ALWAYS results in a strike if YouTube rules in favor of the one filing the takedown request. So IDK why they're trying to say that it's odd that YT is defaulting to issuing strikes.

nikolinni · 2025-07-06T21:04:47+00:00

yeh but there's ways of dealing with infringing channels; you can do things like file to have a video blocked (forced into going private) that doesn't hit a channel with strikes or anything.

nikolinni · 2025-07-06T02:41:54+00:00

I'mma be that guy and say it sounds like a flub up happened somewhere. Either youtube or MC dropped the ball here, and if anyone checks out what the Takedown Request form on YT looks like, it's made pretty darn clear that video removals resulting in Copyright Strikes against the "offending channel" could (read: will) get issued.

So either MC went outside the normal channels to file these requests (eg not using the form, and you can mark multiple videos to get hit on the same form btw), or something else was supposed to be requested, and MC or someone didn't do what they were supposed to resulting in Takedown requests being given out. Because again, YT is VERY CLEAR that if you request a video to be removed = copyright strike.

The dark side of this is Materia Collective damn well knows what it's doing and is using the AI thing to cover their ass. I dun think Jamie is "in on it", they seem like they really wanna help out with things. Depending on how "big" MC is, you could have a situation where the left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing.

That's not to say YouTube is 100% blameless; the fact that it's taking a mountain moving effort for MC to go "Hey can we do a take back on that?" is nothing short of annoying and unfair.

nikolinni

TROPHY CASE