I want to know the answer to the following question:
What loophole did the ruling give rise to?
All the background I'm provided with is that "535 (1994) was a case decided by the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts which ruled that, under the copyright and cybercrime laws effective at the time, committing copyright infringement for non-commercial motives could not be prosecuted under criminal copyright law.". Is that enough to answer the question?