Uff. What a hell of a topic.
I dont have a clear opinion on that.
My rebellious inner self says: Perfect! I hope they get sued, youtube-dl (and all other alternatives, but 99% use youtube-dl as backend anyway) gets forbidden, and sometime if Sony, Universal, and others gets big balls, sue Youtube too that they must implement any kind of effective DRM/Protection. Why? Because my rebllious inner self hopes that then alternatives shows up to youtube (im aware of alternatives like lbry or odysee), where the Channels i watch, would likely use.
But that is of course totaly “wrong” (point of view).
The other one in me says: Hehe good luck. Because you must imagine: The Musiclabels havent any other options. The only thing what they really could do, would be to sue youtube, because youtube didnt protect the uploads of them (for movies and co they do). But they would never do that, because they know, that Youtube/Google have (attention, exaggeration) 9320573254908234 times more Money as they self. In comparsion, they only little “aunt emma stores”. And they would never win that. And if they actually win, then they lost anyway. Because youtube simply removes everything from them then.
Time would show, what happens. But it is much likely that nothing happens. You could say about Germany what you want, but if this goes high enough (court wise), the more competent and thorough they get. And it isnt the first time that nothing would happen. Because first, its open source, and secound, we already have expierence with that. In the late 90’s and early 00’s they already tried exact the same a hundred times (Alcohol, CloneCD, Nero, and many other tools) to forbid these programs. And they lost. Then they tried to block the Websites on DNS Level. And they sued the Hosters, and so long. And they lost everytime, because “Germany said” everytime: Only because you can buy Program XYZ, it didnt mean that the customer use this Program to make multiple copies (and to sell the copies. because you are allowed to make copys for your self anyway by law, but you arent allowed to share the copies).
But what makes me curious, is why they host the website on a another Hoster anyway. They could use github for that too (because it seems Github/Microsoft stands behind them).
Edit: @Celty didnt know why this post is a reply to yours. I must have missclicked