If it's not a dmca takedown and those rules don't apply then I would assume github would need to explain why they filed it as such. (It's probably the RIAAs "fault", but "we" have only direct contact with github so we need to go through them)
[0] https://github.com/github/dmca/blob/master/2020/10/2020-10-2...
That way only the fork get periodically DMCA'd, which will be way easier to recover from : just create another fork with the tests
Do the digital equivalent of the way rich people use holding companies and shell companies. Put all the high risk stuff into the smallest independent repo possible and abandon it at the first sign of trouble. Use an MIT license so anyone can fork it and continue development if you have to abandon it.
It probably wouldn't even take a ton of money to set up a matching corporate structure so you could control everything. Put all the risk into a subsidiary that doesn't make any money (or makes very little). Drag out DMCA complaints until they sue you and then bankrupt the asset-less company. Rinse and repeat.
If you want to get super ballsy, sell the plugins that infringe, but siphon all the money out of the subsidiary with trademark licensing. That way you can license the same trademark to the next company to maintain the brand. Bonus points if you put the holding company in a tax haven.
IANAL. That's probably a really bad idea. Don't do it.
Bandwidth and distribution are no longer the limitations on independent hosting they once were. Independent discovery methods (e.g., DDG video search), are improving. Noncommercial orientation makes youtube-dl and similar mechanisms a net positive --- simplify the web-based delivery, increase viewer flexibility, provide greater tolerance for network or system variability.
My own interest in YouTube has very little to do with commercial mass media, and far less to do with ad-seeking chum-spewing bottom-feeders.
I hate to burst your bubble but that's not even close to be a realistic possibility. Wish it was but it's just not.
More options are more options, surprisingly enough.
I thought all they need to do is to issue a counter-notice. Popcorn did this and got their code reinstated on github: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24885079
In the worst case, they need to adjust their tests. This is what the issuer of the complaint brought up. Their tests of the code downloaded a couple of seconds of what the RIAA thought is copyrighted material. If I'm not mistaken, this is what they are basing their case on.
If youtube-dl removes those explicit urls from their test cases, I don't think they have a case. You could argue fair use, but remember it's only a test case in that program. The authors could just as easily reprogram the test cases to accept any url a user wants to test.
Anyways, consult lawyers, perhaps change the test code and issue a counter notice and move on.