"Andrew is not a litigious person" is a very strange thing to say, given what we've all seen prior to this with Sarah Z, where Hussie threatened legal action over a video he self-admittedly had not even watched to know whether or not there was anything infringing. There is no situation in which that is the action of a non-litigious person. Assuming the legal threat at the end of Gio's article isn't a lie - and I think it's fair to say that, even if Gio is not being 100% truthful in his article, that email is real, because it would just so ridiculously easy for Hussie and his legal team to disprove that Gio wouldn't even gain anything by lying about it - Hussie is proving to be litigious once again here.

> Engage in the self-removal of infringing materials referenced in your email, and attempt to wage a public relations campaign. That approach neither eliminates liability for years of past infringement nor secures your client’s ability to operate going forward, nor does it prevent my client from undertaking any of the preceding actions. I’ll be blunt - we are not concerned about the court of public opinion

This is essentially saying "even if you do take down the UHC, we're still threatening legal action for the years prior to our request where you were infringing on Hussie's copyright and life's work that he cares oh so deeply about to such a degree that it wasn't even readable without this evil collection made by the despicable Gio". As you say yourself, there are plenty of mirrors there he hasn't taken down - why is it this one he suddenly cares about? I can't think of any reason other than the one outlined in the lawyer's letter, that he wants to take down Gio's reporting around what happened with Hiveswap, using his position as copyright holder as a cudgel. Shit on Gio for 'stringing Hussie along' by not signing that NDA, but it looks like he was right to! If he had signed it, he wouldn't have been able to tell anyone what happened here.