The (English) phrase is used verbatim in the (German) 2017 LG Hamburg claim and verdict. It is not explained there, nor did the claimant explain where they got it from. I’m assuming that it’s based on a misunderstanding of “rolling codes” [1], an actual cryptographic technique, which isn’t applied here (the only overlap is that the “s” parameter of the YouTube video URI varies for certain videos; and, well, the key in rolling codes also varies).

Interestingly that verdict also claims that URL encoding is a valid, effective encryption measure (I’m not kidding! See [2]; the German word here is “Prozentcodierung”, i.e. percent-encoding).

The court in question (LG Hamburg) is infamous in Germany for its technically illiterate, consistently laughable verdicts in IT-related cases (this isn’t a recent thing — it’s been going on for about two decades).

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolling_code [2] http://www.rechtsprechung-hamburg.de/jportal/portal/page/bsh...