I doubt the RIAA cares either way, it's ultimately just a bunch of suits that try to justify their position and keep the money flowing.

The difference between Barbara Streisand and the RIAA:

- Streisand wanted privacy. Once private information is broadly released, it can't be hidden again, and trying to take the private information down just disseminated it more.

- The RIAA just wants to stop a tool from being used to violate their copyrights because that causes them financial damages. Unlike Streisand, they have the legal power, under the DMCA, to go after the creators of those tools for financial damages. It doesn't matter if people make copies of the tool, since they can go after all of the copiers. So, unlike Streisand, they can be made whole for their financial losses.

In fact, I would be surprised if someone from the RIAA wasn't on Github right now recording the usernames of the people forking/PRing the youtube-dl code.

> The RIAA just wants to stop a tool from being used to violate their copyrights because that causes them financial damages

But does it actually cause them financial damages? I highly doubt it does.