> they are still downloading and copying the file, regardless of what for or how much which is exactly what the RIAA is claiming. you can cite whatever it is y

> they are still downloading and copying the file, regardless of what for or how much which is exactly what the RIAA is claiming. you can cite whatever it is you want, the fact is that youtube-dl is DEAD wrong in what they are doing. This doesn't make any sense to me as an attack on a fair use defense. Fair Use is, by definition, an affirmative defense against copyright infringement. To invoke it, you assume (even if arguendo) that the copying did take place. Fair Use is a legal justification of the copying, not an argument that copying did take place. So, pointing out that copying took place and spiking the football as if that's the end of the conversation is nonsensical if you're arguing against a Fair Use defense.