You wanna go with that weak analogy then I'll stay with you. It is not breaking and entering if someone who is entrusted with the keys gives them to you knowing you will be going in.
It's not a weak analogy, it's the actual crime they're being charged with.
I will agree that if the team whose video they watched gave them the login credentials in order to allow them to watch the video, we wouldn't be having this conversation. Clearly, that's not what happened here.
Let's further allow that there was a third party who the victims trusted who in turn betrayed that trust and gave the login credentials to the accused so they could access the account without permission. This third party, your "someone entrusted with the keys" doesn't have the ability to make the accused access legal. In fact, this person is at least guilty of aiding and abetting.
To stay with the maid analogy, it doesn't stop being theft just because the maid let the robbers in.
In the electronic world, it doesn't matter that the victim was not deprived of physical property. When hackers steal your credit card number from a server, they've committed a crime even though you still have your credit card number. That's the crime here, although even dumber in motive.
