Supporting my position your "relatively recent" comment was obviouslyjust another boatload of your endless BS.
the article does not show those criteria
No one needs the article to admit they knew it was illegal to crack OSX, any claims by you that we do are as laughable as those you made that they didn't know in the first place. Not that we are surprised, as the record clearly shows you are an admitted liar who makes up his lies quote "for fun". Any expectation you will stop lying now would be incredibly premature, since lying is admittedly how you get your kicks, especially when you get to defend foreign criminals.
So we disagree on relatively recent, although we're still closer to 1909 than 1909 is to the original copyright law. Without "relatively recent" my point still remains, that it was an addition to copyright law that wasn't always there. Copyright law started out a as a civil issue between the copyright holder and the alleged infringer. This is because copyright is exactly as the name sounds: copy right. Others violate your right by infringing, so you sue them.
So perhaps a better wording would have been "a later addition" rather than "relatively recent."
No one needs the article to admit they knew it was illegal to crack OSX
You need to prove willfulness in in order for it to be criminal. It is not assumed. In fact, look at the Elcomsoft trial and see that the prosecution specifically made sure that the Elcomsoft executives knew about the DMCA. Because without that they would have had no case.
Interesting you start using the word "illegal." We would not even be having this issue if you'd just said "illegal hacking" from the beginning.