The takedown notices do not apply to DRM circumvention measures, only copyright material.
I agree it's completely possible that a court case could rule against youtube-dl, but the only method for taking down a DRM circumvention tool is to get a court order.
DRM circumvention measures don't have a takedown provision as such, but the hoster becomes jointly liable as soon as they are notified, which was the point of the letter.
If this were true, it would make no sense for github to have reinstated youtube-dl. I assume such legal liability would need the start of a lawsuit to be valid.
> If this were true, it would make no sense for github to have reinstated youtube-dl.
Github took a punt that the RIAA weren't going to take it to court, because they don't want to risk establishing that the circumvention provisions are more limited in a court case. They got a lot of free PR out of it with little risk, that's why they did it.
As I said at the time, I wouldn't want to litigate on either side of this case. The law is badly drafted, there's little precedent, and I think it's a genuine 50/50. Any lawyer on both sides would advise you not to do so. I suspect the main reason is that the RIAA can now go back to Google and say they are in breach of contract for not preventing downloads on YouTube using technical protection measures, and push them to switch to Widevine on everything with any music in it.
The takedown notices do not apply to DRM circumvention measures, only copyright material.
I agree it's completely possible that a court case could rule against youtube-dl, but the only method for taking down a DRM circumvention tool is to get a court order.