Re: to the 2 replies above

The ''different side of the story'' thing only works if the other side actually addresses the main issues, which Miles didnt. He didnt touch the licensing terms that would have handed control of the UHC to Andrew, the legal threats that pushed Gio to take down his fork, or the history of Andrew using similar tactics in the past. What he did was reframe events in softer language, focus on personal reputation, and talk about how Homestuck isnt disappearing, which was never the central claim in the first place. Thats why I'm calling it a misdirection.

And the ''what other fandom'' argument is just willfully ignoring context. This isnt a case of a random fan demanding free rein to profit off someone else's IP. The UHC wasnt a bootleg cash grab, it was a fan preservation project that became widely used because WP had neglected its own archive. The ''bad guy'' framing isn't about Andrew enforcing copyright in the abstract, its about how he and his team handled it. They handled it with pressure, NDAs, divide and conquer tactics, and legal threats instead of transparent, collaborative negotiation.

Its not unreasonable to expect a creator to work in good faith with a project thats literally preserving their work, especially when theyve already benefited from its existence. The pushback isnt ''how dare Andrew want control of his work,'' it’s ''why did he choose to pursue that control through intimidation instead of cooperation?''