No it was the perfect case, as it exposed two distinct lies he is always attempting to make: that copyright cases can't be criminal, and that only distributing the crack and not the copyrighted material wasn't breaking copyright law. He has repeatedly and endlessly uttered these lies, along with many others, that he has outright admitted to perpetuating for months at a time, in his defense of the criminal hackers. The fact that this case was about Russians, was not necessarily material, but undoubtedly fitting.
The only reason why copyright cases have become criminal is because of DMCA, which suffice it to say is unconstitutionally vague and difficult to enforce (see my crude example above).
The guy wrote a product whose application is only illegal because of that single clause in the DMCA. A product that is only illegal for ordinary U.S. citizens to run.
Read #376, then retract this statement if you are honest enough. I NEVER said "copyright cases can't be criminal" and I NEVER said "distributing the crack and not the copyrighted material wasn't breaking copyright law" or anything to the effect of either statement.
Lesson #1: Some copyright infringements are criminal, most are civil. There are specific requirements that have to be met for a case of infringement to become criminal.
Lesson #2: Breaking the law doesn't necessarily make the action criminal -- it may be exposing you to civil liability instead. Copyright has always been traditionally a civil law. Criminal prosecution for certain actions in certain cases is a relatively recent addition.