With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". the Plaintiffs have alleged that, by d 105 (D.D.C.2005) (“[T]he authorized use of a technological measure does not constitute circumvention for purposes of the DMCA.”). The Plaintiffs cite to Actuate Corp. v. International Business Machines Corp., No. 09-CV-5892, 2010 WL 1340519 (N.D.Cal. April 5, 2010), for the proposition that the unauthorized use of a “low— tech methodology” — namely, a password or, in this case, “fraud and deceit” — to avoid or bypass a technological measure can constitute “circumvention” under the DMCA. The Court finds the holding in Actuate to be unpersuasive insofar as that decision defined “authorized” based on the type of access (with or without permission), not the method of access (the intend ed or unintended mechanism). See Actuate, 2010 WL 1340519, at *9 (<HOLDING>). This rationale contravenes the plain language

A: holding that repeated and exploitative copying of copyrighted works even without direct economic benefit is sufficient for a court to find commercial use
B: holding that proof of unauthorized use of an original trademark by one whose license to use the trademark had been terminated is sufficient to establish the likelihood of confusion prong
C: 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
D: holding that a defendants use of a persons name and social security number without permission constituted the use of a means of identification without lawful authority
C.