Getting DMCA'd doesn't mean anything more than somebody submitted a letter saying "I believe this content infringes my copyright, please take it down.". It does not establish guilt.
Just because the RIAA cries foul doesn't mean there is actually anything wrong here. Piracy is illegal, but youtube-dl is not a piracy tool, just like VHS recorders were not piracy tools. Making personal copies of videos is absolutely legal, and seems to be the prominent way to use youtube-dl (Why else would you use it? The content is already available for free on youtube itself!).
So what you should call youtube-dl is "Something the RIAA doesn't like", basically.
Right, but there is an implication that if it was piracy it is illegal, no? Lets not play coy.
My comment of illegal isn't a court of law, my intent was clearly discussing the idea that if the RIAA is accusing youtube-dl of piracy (effectively), and then they themselves increase popularity of youtube-dl, they would effectively be promoting piracy, aka something illegal.
Ya'll are getting hung up on the details. It was a joke.
Well not a joke i guess, no punchline hah. But still - humor /cheeky comment about if it's considered piracy ("illegal"), and the RIAA end up promoting it, aren't they themselves promoting piracy. That's all :)
Just because the RIAA cries foul doesn't mean there is actually anything wrong here. Piracy is illegal, but youtube-dl is not a piracy tool, just like VHS recorders were not piracy tools. Making personal copies of videos is absolutely legal, and seems to be the prominent way to use youtube-dl (Why else would you use it? The content is already available for free on youtube itself!).
So what you should call youtube-dl is "Something the RIAA doesn't like", basically.