LOL more lies, of course. Even though this is simply an attempt to distract from his other lies, that this couldn't be a criminal case and that distributing just the crack couldn't be prosecuted under copyright law. Guy is apparently sworn to defend criminal hackers, so I'll just keep handing him more rope, sure beats him posting his lies on other threads to trick other unsuspecting posters.
I guess it would depend on "relatively recent." From what I've read, criminal penalties didn't show up until 1909 (remember, this started in the 1700s), and even then it was a misdemeanor with light punishment. Since then, penalties have gone up, and the requirements for criminal penalties have gone way down.
that distributing just the crack couldn't be prosecuted under copyright law
Stop right there with your false witness against me. It just can't be prosecuted criminally unless certain criteria are met -- and the article does not show those criteria.
You said that I said "copyright cases can't be criminal." I said copyright cases can be civil and/or criminal. I NEVER said copyright cases can't be criminal -- I said THIS copyright case can't be criminal according to the information we have.
That is a lie and libel against me. You bear false witness.
You said that I said "distributing the crack and not the copyrighted material wasn't breaking copyright law." I actually said it didn't qualify for criminal penalties IN THIS CASE. I never said it wasn't breaking copyright law. As you saw me post in #376, it likely breaks Section 1201 of the DMCA, and the author is likely subject to civil liability for it.
That is a another lie and libel against me. You again bear false witness.
Now which commandment was it that you broke several times in this thread, twice in that one post? I believe it was number nine (or eight, depending on your denomination).