> Google has to accept the notice, unless NewPipe submits a counter notice,

They don’t have to accept it-they can choose to ignore or reject it. However, if they choose to ignore/reject it, and the notifier then sues them, they may lose one of their legal defences.

Obviously they decide that most of the time complying is the legally less risky path, so most of the time they comply. However, if they get a DMCA request for a famous website like nytimes.com, they probably won’t action it.

I think they have a whitelist for things like Wikipedia.

I don't think counter notices apply to circumvention devices. There is also no liability exemption for service providers.

> I don't think counter notices apply to circumvention devices.

Right, because the DMCA takedown notice procedure as a whole doesn't apply to circumvention devices, only to content that is itself copyright infringement.

Exactly. The DRM circumvention parts of the DMCA specify a court order is needed to stop a circumvention device.

Why isn't this higher up? This seems like the actual meat of the discussion: Google is erroneously interpreting this takedown request as something it's supposed to comply with, when in fact it's not. Furthermore by misinterpreting requirements here Google is harming the public and newpipe. I wonder what newpipe's appeal (to Google) process looks like...

Putting on my conspiracy theory hat, but I've used the NewPipe android app for at least a couple years now and the experience has been so good I wondered why Google hadn't made more of an effort to quash it. Maybe this is a way for them to harm the project without looking anticompetitive or something.