I'm not saying this is wrong, but how do you know?
That is, do you claim to have a grounded understanding of the law? (Perhaps as a lawyer, or a layperson who's studied this in some depth.) Or are you simply saying that in your opinion the law should consider youtube-dl's decryption acceptable by this reasoning? Or something else?
(I'm not even asking for citations here, if it's the first thing.)
I'm also interested, though: can you imagine a phrasing or argument that would invalidate the sentence you quoted? How would the restriction be framed? Would it mention a list of concrete programs which you can to access the website? Can RIAA for instance, in your opinion, mandate that a website can only be accessed through Chrome?
But the sorts of things I could imagine going wrong with your argument might be...
* Yes, browsers are in violation of the thing bitwize quoted, but it doesn't apply to them for reasons written elsewhere.
* Yes, browsers are actually in violation of DMCA. People probably noticed this when the law was being written, but no one listened to them. If anyone tried to enforce DMCA against browsers, DMCA would get overturned, so no one's going to try. (I think this is unlikely - if there was an argument that browsers violate DMCA, I think I'd probably have heard of it. Probably. But including for completeness.)
* Browsers need Javascript engines for many many reasons. Youtube-dl (afaik) needs a javascript engine specifically to get around this obfuscation. That could be relevant somehow. (Similar reasoning might say that locksmiths are allowed to own lockpicks and no one else is. I believe the law has roundly rejected that. But that doesn't mean the law would reject this, too.)
Again, not claiming any of these actually apply. Just, this sort of thing is why I'm hesitant to make inferences that seem otherwise sensible.
To answer very shortly: to my knowledge, there are no such exemptions for browsers specifically. Point 2 would actually work against DMCA, as you observed. I think point 3 is defeated by the fact that there are websites which require JS support to initiate video reproduction but which do not use it as an obfuscation technique.
Instead, RIAA is counting on this matter not to reach the courts and everyone submitting to their will out of fear, which ever so slightly modifies public opinion on the matter and pushes the Overton window.
From my experience, in cases like this the law turns out to be somewhat arbitrary and devolves into "whatever the judge(s) of the highest order think". It is extremely important not to get self-defeatist at this point and argue aggressively for the outcome you want to see play out.
Of course, I am not sure how this would in fact play out in court, but I think no one is. If anyone is aware of a concrete fact which makes my reasoning outright invalid, I invite them to cite it.
However, a tool which selectively evaluates the JavaScript to decrypt the content URL without implementing the rightsholder's policies would count as disabling or evading effective protection under the DMCA, and thus be illegal. Browsers are not such tools; however, distributing software (say, a GreaseMonkey script) or instructions on how to make a browser evaluate the decryption JavaScript and download the video without implementing the policies would also be illegal.
Why is this so hard to understand? The law is very clear: when a protective measure is set up, be it in JavaScript, Visual Basic, or anything else, anything that gets around that measure is a crime to distribute.
No, they're not. The Javascript was designed to run in the browsers as authorized user agents so that a user can view the video.
You can't host something publicly, available via common, general purpose technology and then claim protection when someone uses this general purpose technology to obtain it.
Yes, you can. Literally, the entire point of copyright and IP law is to incentive creators to make their creations public by protecting them when they do so.
What are "browsers"?
> Yes, you can. Literally, the entire point of copyright and IP law is to incentive creators to make their creations public by protecting them when they do so.
Sure, but that has little to do with the topic at hand since copyright is not being challenged. Clearly it is the RIAA's intent for the content they publish publicly to be available publicly.
You can't host something publicly, available via common, general purpose technology and then claim protection when someone uses this general purpose technology to obtain it.
The RIAA would have more of a case if they hosted this on their own site and made it accessible only through their own special purpose tooling. It would still be stupid, but then they could at least claim a RIAA Player(tm) is required to access the content.