I don't think you understand. Yeah, you can sue people for illegally redistributing copyrighted works. However, I am skeptical that you can do the same for people using YouTube-dl to consume copyrighted works. You are downloading the file from someone who has a license to redistribute it, you are just using a CLI utility instead of the page itself. You can't view something without downloading it in some capacity.

I'm not saying there's no possibility this is "illicit," I am saying this is not the same as illegally downloading music off of Kazaa.

I was thinking the same thing. Instead of using a browser to access a website, parse the files given to it, and download the data so that the user can view it, you are using youtube-dl to access a website, parse the files given to it, and download the data so the user can view it.

But I'm not a lawyer.

[Edit: I'm not completely sure how section 1201 interfaces with the fair use rules, but at the very least, a quick glance at the statute (as well as awareness of the First Amendment constitutional underpinnings of fair use) makes me believe the interaction does not entirely eliminate fair use in a context where section 1201 applies. It's clearly complicated.]

The law makes it clear downloading copyright material without holding copyright or a suitable license is usually not legal, but exceptions exist in many countries including the US (where the exception is called fair use).

Some uses of youtube-dl with RIAA-member-copyrighted content very probably fall under that fair use exception, even if other common uses do not. For example, if a music critic wants to use youtube-dl to import a music video into video editing software to produce a review of it, interspersing only a small excerpt of the original video with commentary on it, that's classic fair use and would be an easy win in US court if accused of copyright infringement.

If the actual and as-marketed purpose of covering those copyrighted videos by 3 of 94 unit tests is to make sure that such noninfringing fair uses of youtube-dl are possible with the technologies involved in those videos, I expect that the DMCA claim is invalid. If the actual or as-marketed purpose is to ensure that it's possible to infringe those videos, then the DMCA claim is valid.

That's a question of fact for a judge (in a bench trial) or a jury (in a jury trial). If the more favorable answer is true and credibly defensible in court, youtube-dl might be able to survive a motion for summary judgment, gain support in the court of public opinion, and lead the RIAA to consider settling or dropping the claim.

But if they were indeed trying to facilitating illegal circumvention or infringement, or if they can't credibly prove otherwise in court, yeah this won't end well for their ability to host youtube-dl in the many countries that now have a DMCA-like law.

(Disclaimer: I'm not a lawyer, just a former law student layman who remains a legal geek interested in and relatively informed in these areas. But I don't claim to be authoritative and this is definitely not legal advice. youtube-dl should definitely involve a suitably expert and qualified lawyer if they're going to fight this.)

Pardon i pointed to the wrong case example rather the better one is the RIAA suing Kazaa, Limewire, etc out of existence as they were tools to everyone used to download copyrighted material... 95% used for or more used for such.

Those companies mentioned and or others promoted and or were well aware their users were downloading copyrightable material which is contributory infringement.

This YouTube DL is used for the same thing and probably the same percentage are using it to download copyrighted content.

Not that I pro RIAA ... rather trying to detail the best case example for the RIAA potentially having a case against this tool.

The RIAA and MPAA were suing users of Kazaa who were alleged to have redistributed copyrighted works. These lawsuits were not because someone possessed or redistributed free software source code.