Which was a completely duplicitous PR stunt. Nat: * Complied with a DMCA take-down request which he had no legal reason to comply with. DMCA takedown requests

Which was a completely duplicitous PR stunt. Nat: * Complied with a DMCA take-down request which he had no legal reason to comply with. DMCA takedown requests are for infringing content. DMCA bans anticircumvention measures, but that's between youtube-dl and RIAA. RIAA does that by initiating litigation, or sending a demand letter to the youtube-dl project. * Took down forks of youtube-dl, which he had no reason to do. Those should have been independent DMCA requests. * Threatened to ban users who forked youtube-dl, in violation of his own ToS and DMCA policy. If Nat was doing the bare minimum required to maintain legal compliance, I wouldn't fault him. Legally, he's zealously pursuing youtube-dl and acting as the RIAA's lapdog. At the same time, he's publicly making statements of empathy towards youtube-dl. Pathetic.