> So whether you can legally use WWW browsers is not the point at issue. It is whether youtube-dl is a tool that enables access to YouTube contents by circumven

> So whether you can legally use WWW browsers is not the point at issue. It is whether youtube-dl is a tool that enables access to YouTube contents by circumventing a "cipher". But by that logic if youtube-dl circumvents a "cipher", so does Chrome and all the WWW browsers. There is no legal difference between them, YouTube provides code to circumvent a "cipher" for such software itself.