Okay, I'll finally spill the beans since GE isn't likely to get it despite previously being told the law in question.
Background Info:
Before I start, remember that we're going on the information available in the story. And, for reference, the hack in question is essentially the equivalent of the common Windows slipstreaming tools. The software the hackers wrote will let you create an OS X install DVD that will install on a Dell.
To make it really clear, the tool requires that you already have the OS X installation DVD. A modified version of the installation DVD you already own is then copied onto the new install DVD, just like in Windows slipstreaming.
The modifications mostly fall into three categories. One, it emulates the open-standards EFI firmware since most PCs are still on the 80s-technology BIOS. Second, it emulates newer hardware so, for example, you wouldn't have to have a Core Duo to run it (OS X apparently expects only the latest chips). Third, it cracks the hardware-dependent encryption layer to make OS X think it's on a Mac. This is the "circumvention device" discussed below, and it was apparently extremely easy.
The legal stuff:
Copyright infringement used to be criminal if it was done for profit. The copyright cartel got that changed to even if you distributed a certain value worth of copyrighted works without license it becomes criminal. But none of that applies criminally, since they are never claimed to have distributed OS X.
The DMCA's anti-circumvention clauses in 1201 are what apply here since they make "circumvention devices" illegal in many cases (although with many exceptions). And while they do have a spotty legal history, and are internally inconsistent, they are still there and in effect. However, it is still a civil matter by default.
What changes it to criminal, and what got Elcomsoft in trouble, is doing it willfully and for profit, which invokes section 1204. There is absolutely zero indication that this was done for profit. It was hackers (actually one initially) trying to get OS X to run on non-Mac hardware. They released their tool for free with no indication of expectation of financial gain. Plus, willfulness is not assumed in copyright cases, and the plaintiff must prove it. Do we expect a Russian programmer to know the intricacies of US copyright law, especially concerning a clause that has no equivalent in most of the world?
In summary, without both financial gain and willfulness, there is no criminal penalty for circumvention. The article hinted at neither.
Your claims the hacker didn't know it was illegal to crack OSX are ludicrous, and on par with your other insidious lies you have already admitted to carrying on for months. There was a significant financial benefit for anyone who was illegally using the crack to run OSX on cheap Dells, your ridiculous claims that no Russian hackers anywhere were profiting from this hack are simply further proof of the constant lies you use in your attempts to defend the Russian hacker underworld.