According to the EFF link below they don't need to be a holder. If the software is for breaking locks they can submit a take down notice under section 1201.
It's a notice under the provisions of the DMCA, but it's not a "DMCA takedown".
What we call DMCA takedowns, coloquially, with the whole counter notification process etc, are notices submitted under Title II. That title deals with copyright infringement, not anti-circumvention.
That means treating such notices as a typical DMCA notice, as GitHub has done, is incorrect. GitHub may well choose to follow the takedown if it considers it valid and the repo infringing, but what they've done is treat it as a copyright takedown. And that is clearly, unambiguously wrong, as it goes against their own DMCA policy, linked from the youtube-dl repo's disabled notice, which says:
> The DMCA notice and takedown process should be used only for complaints about copyright infringement. Notices sent through our DMCA process must identify copyrighted work or works that are allegedly being infringed.
So yes, GitHub messed up here. That doesn't mean they shouldn't have taken down youtube-dl, but they way they went about doing it is wrong.
You'll notice that the EFF, in that article, never goes into the details of the takedown process that happened. They never said what GitHub did was proper. They are just talking about the anti-circumvention law in general.
The key here is that if they DIDN'T comply with it, the RIAA might sue them. Even if they were to win it (because a judge determines the takedown provisions don't cover it or for another reason), they'd be in for a costly legal battle. Moreover, without the Title II provisions, they would be liable for having distributed the circumvention in the past!
On the other hand, if they DO comply with it, the RIAA is extremely unlikely to sue them, whether this is covered by the safe-harbor provisions of Title II or not.
Microsoft might find itself in a costly legal battle? Oh no, software freedom must be curtailed lest poor Microsoft ever find itself in a costly legal battle for doing the right thing.
I also found it a funny comment because Microsoft employs about 500 lawyers as part of an in-house legal team that is larger than most independent firms. If standing up for what it thinks is ethically and morally right isn't something a multi billion $ company with 500 lawyers can do, who can?
That is actually not true. Many laws, in many jurisdictions, are challenged by defending those who break them.
In fact, in the US, that is the _only_ way for a citizen to challenge a law. One cannot challenge a law that they have not been charged with breaking in the United States.
... do you really expect a company, whose entire goal and motive is maximizing profit, to waste their profits? Because if so this conversation is not worth continuing.
... do you really expect a company, whose entire goal and motive is maximizing profit, to waste their profits? Because if so this conversation is not worth continuing.
I don't think the Mob could have written a more devious, anti-consumer, draconian law if they'd been given free reign.
"That's some nice software you got there... be a shame if something were to... happen... to it. So, you better keep paying us for our locked-down content, and don't even think about trying to pick those locks. Or else."
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.
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2020/11/github-youtube-dl-take...