I have to agree. Putting examples of copyright infringement in the README and test cases was irresponsible. What were they thinking? Time for a less reckless group of people to work on a replacement.
As for the test cases, this is what the article has to say about it:
> they are automated test cases where the test just downloads the first 10KB, which amounts to a couple of seconds at most. This is certainly fair use, but the project is fully functional without these test cases.
So what part of this article are you agreeing with? I doubt we read the same article.
We note that the source code is described on GitHub as “a command-line program to download videos from YouTube.com and a few more sites.”1
We also note that the source code prominently includes as sample uses of the source code the downloading of copies of our members’ copyrighted sound recordings and music videos, as noted in Exhibit A hereto.