It makes both a copyright claim and a claim about circumvention devices. I don't agree, as you don't, that the copyright claim is valid, youtube-dl git repo cle

It makes both a copyright claim and a claim about circumvention devices. I don't agree, as you don't, that the copyright claim is valid, youtube-dl git repo clearly isn't hosting any copyrighted materials owned by the RIAA members represented in the letter. But the letter also never claims that it does. The law does not demand automated enforcement of claims or the establishment of a channel for automated enforcement. That is a compliance device invented by GitHub/YouTube/etc. for managing the substantial volume of requests they must receive with as much transparency as their customers demand and its operational characteristics are not covered by the law, it's simply a tool that GitHub uses to make themselves responsive and in compliance with as little overhead and manual intervention required as possible. The law does prescribe the "claim, counter-claim" process, which GitHub must respect if they are to maintain their compliance and safe harbor. If they were in the habit of reviewing every claim for validity (strictly not required by the law that insulates them), then I might agree with you, but I think that singling out this one claim and handling it specially would in fact open them up to a great big world of even criminal liability, that their straightforward compliance with the law insulates them from. The law prescribes almost exactly how GitHub should respond to claims and counter-claims, down to how many days the content may be removed for if a counter-claim is laid. > If you send a counter-notice, your online service provider is required to replace the disputed content unless the complaining party sues you within fourteen business days of your sending the counter-notice. (Your service provider may replace the disputed material after ten business days if the complaining party has not filed a lawsuit, but it is required to replace it within fourteen business days.) What must happen now, is youtube-dl either responds with a counter-claim or they don't. Then either a lawsuit is filed by RIAA within 10-14 days, or it isn't. Possibly one is filed later. (They don't waive any rights by not filing the lawsuit right away.) By managing the claim this way, GitHub has ensured at least that they need not be party to the lawsuit. (They will not be on the receiving side of a lawsuit. This does not preclude them from going on the offensive and claiming tortuous interference, but it does protect them from imminent danger.) So, whether this was a valid claim by RIAA or an illegal attempt at tortious interference is surely a matter for the courts to decide, but suffice it to say I am far less confident than you are that GitHub would be safe from any kind of legal reprisal if they stood fast here, and tried to hold the position that you are arguing without letting the compliance channel play out however that goes. It is a chilling law and we've known this since it was penned. I don't agree with the law and I am interested to see this play out, I hope this takedown is not the end of the story.