It was really ambitious of Crash Course to try and encapsulate the Ramayana in one 13-minute video, but I suppose that because they removed the narrative from its religious context, they minimized the the necessary depth of their discussion. I think overall it does a good job of hitting the broad strokes of the narrative, but where it really falls short for me is that it fails to discuss the multitude of interpretations and adaptations of this story. There is a blurb in the beginning about the fact that because it was originally an oral tradition, there are several versions of the Ramayana, but then they go on to discuss Valmiki's version of the story almost a gospel truth. If I had not gone back to check for this, it would have been very easy for me to miss that fact and then believe that the story as presented in this narrative was the true way to think of the Ramayana, even though we have seen in our past several readings that that is not always the case. To me, this video negates to address the vast expanse of interpretations of the Ramayana, and presents it to a predominantly Western society as finite story that follows this exact trajectory.
Even though this video attempts to analyze the story of the Ramayana outside of its religious context, it still recognizes it as having cultural significance, particularly for Hind culture. I think this is the justification for giving it the subheading as "mythology," because from an academic understanding, the Ramayana fits the definition of a myth: it is a narrative that has great cultural significance that is fundamental to a society, and also has supernatural elements and divine characters that aid in the telling of the story.