There is a legitimate disagreement here, but parts of this thread have gone well beyond disagreement and into inventing facts.
The defensible criticism of JaWoodle is simple:
Once he was told that the officially supplied build contained material TFP did not intend to show, he could have removed or substantially edited the affected videos. Doing so would probably have been the safest commercial decision and may have preserved the creator relationship.
That is a reasonable opinion.
What is not reasonable is repeatedly declaring that he knowingly leaked material, committed a crime, deceived his viewers, blackmailed TFP, pocketed legal donations or engineered the dispute for money. None of those claims has been established.
The initial publication and the later refusal are separate events.
JaWoodle received a build through the official creator programme, presented as 3.0 access for the purpose of creating 3.0 coverage. He published at the stated embargo time. Behaviour’s correspondence, as presented, acknowledged ambiguity around build access and versioning, said he had received a build labelled as 3.0, said it was not accusing him of intentionally seeking out the incorrect build, and accepted responsibility for supplying that build.
The fact that he recognised bandits as unfinished does not prove that he knew the build itself was unauthorised or that material accessible inside it fell outside his permission to create coverage. Those are different kinds of knowledge.
Using the spawn menu does not resolve that question either. At most, the unusual nature of the material may have given him reason to pause and ask. That supports an argument about judgement. It does not establish deliberate wrongdoing.
Once informed, he did not refuse every form of cooperation. He corrected the record, pinned a clarification, repeated it on streams, stopped further publication, cancelled planned Instagram content and proposed an alternative while responsibility and costs were discussed. He refused the complete remedy demanded of him. You can regard that as inadequate without falsely saying he did nothing.
Likewise, TFP owning the game and its assets does not automatically settle the copyright dispute. The relevant questions include the scope of the permission attached to official creator access, any earlier NDA, the later 3.0 authorisation, the event terms, the character of the videos and the legal basis for removing entire uploads. None of us has the complete documents required to decide those questions.
Removing him from the creator programme is also not the same issue as copyright-striking his independent videos. The former is a commercial relationship decision. The latter is a legal claim capable of threatening his entire channel.
People are free to say:
“He should have taken the videos down once notified.”
People are not entitled to transform that opinion into:
“He knowingly stole confidential material, committed a crime and defrauded his audience.”
The public evidence does not establish any of that.
The pro-JaWoodle side should exercise the same discipline. There is no public proof that TFP deliberately set him up, that no NDA existed, or that he is guaranteed to win any legal dispute.
The facts are already serious enough. There is no need for either side to manufacture motives, crimes or conspiracies.
