Hussie vs UHC - Is this, like... actually true?

it's okay kevin... you can be an evil jubilite cultist in our hearts if you really want 👉👈

do not fret kevin i see your *squints* five day old pinned thread even though github confuses me i can tell it is still operational despite it all

Wait is Gio actually trying to say Hussie is running a Jubilite cult? Is that an actual claim he's made?

Update! Apparently the footnote on the "The Gio Question" section is now gone!

What the hell, man!

RE: Shelbybunny

On the jubilism thingthis is what i searched to find the word Jubilism.

We gotta stop Makeship from collaborating with the current team and report the patreon so that we can strip Hussie of his income.

Re;idtechgodhead hussie doesnt make any money from this

Shelby, Gio is quite obviously not claiming that Hussie is running a secret Jubilite cult and that Psycholonials was made to indoctrinate people into hater-hunting assassins. I believe the point being made is that he was willing to overlook the fact that prior Homestuck employees had whipped up fans directly, telling them in no uncertain words to 'get this bitch' and 'rip him apart' (and these fans may have done so under the auspices of 'Jubilism' - presumably ironically, although if you're making death threats, you're not smart, so who knows?), but Hussie was not willing to overlook the fact that WhatPumpkin received hate for their own actions, that he believes Gio to be at fault for.

well, the inflammatory tone of gio's article calls to mind bill bolin more than anything...

let me see if i understand the actual legal situation at play here. the heart of this seems to be some kind of licensing dispute. the uhsc team was approached by the hicu for some sort of official licensing deal, and there were some kind of internal problems or disagreements after that. based on what cami has posted in this thread, it seemingly has something to do with their nomination process, with some kind of official statement on the way.

the only thing that actually worries me about any of this is the mention of dmca strikes. if thats true then that would obviously put the future of the uhsc in jeopardy. but its also possible gio has simply gotten angry or misunderstood something and taken his work down when that wasnt necessary, bolin style.

ultimately, as long as the uhsc still remains available, then this doesnt seem to me like something we need to care about or have an opinion on as fans that are uninvolved with internal corporate politics...

yeah, the uhsc is staying up. that was never in question. can't blame people for being worried about it.

RE: Jadebot, yeah honestly, that makes sense, I've seen some much worse Drama connected to homestuck THIS YEAR (I'm not going to spread it here unless it becomes something I need to share) and I feel like, sometimes drama like this doesn't even need to be spread, because I can't really tell what good is being done by spreading this situation.

Regardless of whether the UHC is still accessible, I still think it matters to us as fans as to whether or not the DMCA strike, if true, was taken against Gio for having the audacity to archive Hussie's work when it was literally unreadable. Nobody defends Nintendo when they pull this stuff.

no, that's fair. i kinda wanted to give everyone a chance to talk for themself before i weighed in, but i can give a tldr.

Okay, yeah, the DMCA thing does kinda suck if it's true, but this is at least somewhat different from what Nintendo does since Hussie did offer to make it an offical thing, and there is now currently an official source to access the comic.

now. im no copyright expert. but i would think that the UHC being accessible in the way that it is. that you can literally go and fork it right now if you wanted. means that there wasnt a DMCA strike

also theres homestuck.net that still exists as it does despite the controversy when it first popped up specifically around it being mistaken for OG homestuck and that people didnt like that it scraped fanworks and wanted their work removed from the archive. why give a DMCA to one but not the other?

Gio’s fork of the UHC wasn‘t taken down by a DMCA from Hussie, he took it down himself.

RE: Demeter i agree! thats why i said it worries me. i am very firmly anti-dmca. however, the accusation is only alleged for now, it may not be true.

yeah, not to kinda say the dark and evil words, but andrew is not a litigious person. there's a fan game up on steam literally titled "friendsim 2," that's been there for years, and the only thing that happened is that it got a license. there's a ton of Homestuck mirrors out there that haven’t been taken down because, yknow, they're a way for people to read homestuck.

the unofficial collection is up right now. they've been trying to make an official one for two years. the only reason there isn't one already is because gio refused to sign an NDA about not leaking the project, and strung them along for... two years.

"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.