Replies

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.

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:

A federal judge yesterday denied Russian software company Elcomsoft's request to dismiss charges against it for breaching the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). Elcomsoft is the company standing behind programmer Dmitry Sklyarov who is accused of violating the law by developing a program capable of circumventing copyright restrictions on Adobe's eBook software. Judge Ronald Whyte's ruling means that Elcomsoft must face criminal charges on the ground that the DMCA's ban on copyright circumvention tools is constitutional, even if the circumvention tools themselves are used for legal purposes.

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.

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

You're getting close, and now at least unknowingly you're referring to the right law, but you fail to spot the crucial difference between the cases.

And, despite your representation, the "hackers" in question were a Russian software company producing a product that is absolutely legal almost everywhere in the world. It is also a product that the FBI itself bought and used. Here's an exchange from the trial:

"Do you sell your software in Russia?" Burton asked.
"Yes." Vladimir said. "We sell it on the Internet to all countries."
"Are there customers of your software that are in law enforcement?" Burton asked.
"Yes." Vladimir said.
"Can you give me an example of a customer?" Burton asked.
"Police Departments, FBI, IRS." Vladimir said.
"Police Departments, the FBI and the IRS are customers of yours?" Burton asked.
"Yes. They are purchasers of our programs." Vladimir said.
"Is the U.S. Department of Justice a customer?" Burton asked.
"Yes. We receive orders from them about once a month from different states." Vladimir replied.
"Are there state agencies that are customers of your software?" Burton asked.
"Yes." Vladimir said.
"Do District Attorneys purchase your products?" Burton asked.
"Yes." Vladimir said.
"Are there private companies?" Burton asked.
"Yes." Vladimir replied. "Adobe, Microsoft, Motorola, Siemens..."
"Adobe is one of your customers?" Burton asked, emphasizing Adobe ever so slightly as he said it.
"Yes." Vladimir said.

Yes, we were prosecuting for writing a program that is a favorite of our law enforcement itself. Oh, the irony!