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.
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.
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
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.