the EchoStar receivers into the World Cable system, the Defendants were able to effectuate a more seamless rebroadcasting of the decrypted signal. However, the Second Circuit has clearly held that “the DMCA does not concern itself with the use of [protected] materials after circumvention has occurred”. Corley, 273 F.3d at 443. By way of analogy, Congress explained that: “The act of circumventing a technological protection measure put in place by a copyright owner to control access to a copyrighted work is the electronic equivalent of breaking into a locked room in order to obtain a copy of a book.” H.R.Rep. No. 105-551, pt. 1, at 17 (1998). In this case, the room was already unlocked, and therefore the Defendants did not have to “br LC, 657 F.Supp.2d 878, 889 (N.D.Ohio 2009) (<HOLDING>); Egilman v. Keller & Heckman, LLP., 401
holding that the use of passwords without authorization is no different than the unauthorized use of other technologies to gain access to copyrighted material and therefore it avoids and bypasses a technological measure in violation of the dmca holding that an appellants due process rights were not violated when he did not receive brady material before his transfer hearing because he will be able to make effective use of any brady material at trial holding that the total denial of all access to the law library for seven months violated the plaintiffs constitutional right of access to the courts holding that reasonable access includes general facility access without notice and patient access with twentyfour hour notice holding that a defendant does not circumvent or bypass any technological measure when he uses the approved methodology  to access the copyrighted material