I was curious about this as well, so I watched Leonard French's discussion about this case, as he is both a copyright defense lawyer and has some background wit

I was curious about this as well, so I watched Leonard French's discussion about this case, as he is both a copyright defense lawyer and has some background with code. He discusses exactly this issue, and points out that it does not matter how strong the protection really is...even if it's a basic obfuscation that could be reversed with a one-liner, it still qualifies. You can watch it here: https://youtu.be/wZITscblMBA?t=889 https://youtu.be/wZITscblMBA?t=889 In short, even though the above comment is being downvoted, I think it is correct from a legal perspective, in the sense that even YouTube's basic approach to obfuscation will be sufficient to quality.