You do have a fair point. Although my views align with SuperTramp's, I can
understand how those who are less inclined to completely trample over
copyright restrictions may not see that statement in such a positive light.
However, it seems questionable that the execution of JavaScript is *with* the
author's consent and the downloading of the videos *without*. In regards to
the JavaScript, it is stated in YouTube's TOS that "You agree not to access
Content through any technology or means other than the video playback pages
of the Service itself, the Embeddable Player, or other explicitly authorized
means YouTube may designate." (from
https://trisquel.info/en/forum/you-cannot-watch-youtube-libre-software-computer#comment-113304).
This would seem to imply non-consent to use of the 'JavaScript engine' in
YouTube-DL for the purpose of downloading videos- potentially there would be
no objections to running the JavaScript for other purposes, but that is
beside the point.
For downloading of videos, there is of course non-consent in some sense,
highlighted in the TOS quote above. On the other hand, though, official music
videos have been posted online, for free, in a public space under the
auspices of the publishers themselves (or at least with their implicit
consent). This to me suggests permission, or even encouragement, from the
copyright holders to download a copy and have a look. They might not want you
holding a copy on your hard drive, or using a third-party interface to
YouTube, but that's a separate issue- the former can be administered at will
with the delete key, and the latter is the only way to access *any* YouTube
video without running 10 tonnes of full-strength JS.
