That is the case pretty much anywhere.
Is there? Just because someone claims (without court determining it) that some content is illegal doesn't make it so. So there would have to be some language in the law that the intermediary incurs liability due to mere allegations.
If record labels want to stop users from downloading their content, that's more than fine. It's a giant attack vector for such a small net benefit.
To support legal use-cases such as archival?
Not only that, the argument here is supposed to be that youtube-dl is "primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing a technological measure" etc.
If you can remove <1% of the code and somehow cause it to not be that anymore and yet still be something which is useful for the majority of what people do with it, doesn't that just mean it was never that to begin with?