(i) [to] circumvent the technological protection measures used by authorized streaming services such as YouTube
(ii) reproduce and distribute music videos and sound recordings owned by our member companies without authorization for such use.
Third; 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
https://web.archive.org/web/20201025095539/https://github.co...
#1 Falls under §1201, for a maybe-anticirc tool created by a third party for whom RIAA's standing is likely nil. The anticirc use & claim itself is weak.
#2 is ... at best vague, but seems to aver contributory infringement, which ... is not related to any Chapter 1 rights or Chapter 5 penalties that I see. Users of a tool might be liable, but not its developers or manufacturers. Otherwise, a very weak §1201 claim.
#3 Fails to identify an infringement in the work but instead in its use. The infringing party given Github's CI/CD process would actually be RIAA member Microsoft. Use of works is de minimis and passes at least three of the §107 Fair Use affirmative defence tests, as well as §117 (computer program), §512(a) and/or §512(b) (Transitory Digital Network Communications).
As to YouTube works' copyright status, under Berne (US copyright since 1976), copyright exists "in original works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression", with very limited exceptions, automatically, with no action required of the author. US Government works and expired copyrights are the principle exceptions. Some authorities dispute that works can be put in the public domain otherwise (I'm not convinced). While some YouTube content is in the public domain, the overwhelming majority is subject to copyright.