I don't understand their reconciliation of this case with the printer toner case in regards to Warden "effectively controlling access" to WoW's dynamic elements

I don't understand their reconciliation of this case with the printer toner case in regards to Warden "effectively controlling access" to WoW's dynamic elements. From the decision: ...In Lexmark, the plaintiff sold laser printers equipped with an authentication sequence, verified by the printer’s copyrighted software, that ensured that only plaintiff’s own toner cartridges could be inserted into the printers. The defendant sold microchips capable of generating an authentication sequence that rendered other manufacturers’ cartridges compatible with plaintiff’s printers. ...The mere purchase of one of plaintiff’s printers allowed “access” to the copyrighted program. Any purchaser could read the program code directly from the printer memory without encountering the authentication sequence. The authentication sequence thus blocked only one form of access: the ability to make use of the printer. However, it left intact another form of access: the review and use of the computer program’s literal code...it seems clear that this provision does not naturally extend to a technological measure that restricts one form of access but leaves another route wide open. By the same token, wouldn't you say that Warden blocks only one form of access to WoW's copyrighted dynamic elements -- the ability to access the game when running a bot -- and leaves intact another form of access -- the ability to access the game normally when no other programs are running? Can someone who understands the fine print here help explain the distinction?