[antiRepublicrat]

"Simply violating a license by not abiding by the terms (if those terms are deemed enforceable by the court) is a civil tort, not a crime, thus, no "criminals." It could be come a crime had they copied OS X itself and widely sold it"

That is true. Show me in the law where it isn't.

when you tried to infer that personal backups were somehow criminal, amazingly somehow instead of the Russian hackers you've been endlessly defending:

As has been pointed out to you, that was your logic, not my view. I properly cited the law to show you the effects of your view. Again, show me where I falsely cited law.

Retract your accusation if you can't show where I falsely cited the law.

[Golden Eagle]

As part of your still obviously ongoing defense of the Russian hackers you claimed that they couldn't have been criminal since they didn't distribute OSX, even though I showed case history of Russians being criminally prosecuted for distributing the hacks alone. I also showed Apple's letter threatening criminal prosecution, which you called "BS". You then went to other threads inferring that personal backups were "criminal", somehow instead of your Russian hacker heroes, the only law you may have been right about was when you attempted to trot out the "180 day rule for criminal prosecution" on their behalf, since you've now been defending them for just short of a year now. But all that really shows is how low you're willing to go to defend foreign hackers who cracked OSX and distributed the crack to the internet.