That's for distribution of copyrighted works of a value in excess of the statutory amount. You're barking up the wrong legal tree here, as there is no evidence they distributed even one copy of OS X. The only way you can get close to criminality is by looking to a different aspect of copyright law, and you haven't provided evidence that could even bring that into relevance in this case.
When are you going to get it through your skull that I'm not defending hackers, but debating points of law? Look at my history, I love to debate law. You called them criminal, and I objected to that as a matter of law, not as a matter of defending anyone -- besides, the huge civil penalties possible under copyright law can make one wish he could have just gotten some time in jail instead.
Another obvious lie, endlessly looking for legal loopholes for criminal Russian hackers is definitely defending them. Having your hell bound buddy FLAMING DEATH post more obvious lies isn't helping you either, LOL.
Another lie, of course, you obviously can't even post without creating more and more lies in your defense of criminals. You can easily be criminally prosecuted for cracking software, even if you don't distribute anything other than the crack itself. Here's a case against Russian hackers from 2002, where criminal charges were filed against Russian hackers, simply for cracking the password mechanism:
These are the kinds of scumbags you defend, with lies you tried to perpetrate for months, which you have now admitted to and claim were "fun". That makes you equal if not even lower than the Russian scumbags, of course, especially since you still are trying to defend them now with more lies.