It's not treated differently at all - that's exactly what the EFF just argued in its response to the RIAA [1]:

> Because youtube-dl simply uses the "signature" code provided by YouTube in the same manner as any browser, rather than bypassing or avoiding it, it does not circumvent, and any alleged lack of authorization from YouTube or the RIAA is irrelevant.

[1] https://github.com/github/dmca/blob/master/2020/11/2020-11-1...