Of course they'll be more likely to not be sued if they take it down, but again: the process they used is wrong. They are playing this as if youtube-dl were a c

Of course they'll be more likely to not be sued if they take it down, but again: the process they used is wrong. They are playing this as if youtube-dl were a copyright violation, which it isn't. They are saying youtube-dl has a right (and needs to) file a counter-notice to have itself be reinstated, which it doesn't. The Title II provisions are irrelevant, as they do not cover circumvention devices. The RIAA could sue them regardless of whether they comply or not.