I don't have any links to post in line with my text, so hopefully my native wit will suffice to entertain you. Whoever "you" are. Anyway, things progress apace in the case of State v. Roy. The preliminary hearing went entirely the state's way, which was not exactly surprising.
Here's a hypothetical question that this case has spawned. Let's assume that you're a normal computer user. Since you're reading this, we're probably justified in calling you a computer user. All things being equal, it's more likely than not that you're normal. So you seem like a good person to try this out on: if I said to you, "Could you please remove some data from my computer?" what would you think I just asked you to do? More pointedly, would it ever in a million years cross your mind that I had just asked you to copy data from my computer to another computer? I'm betting it wouldn't. We don't have a million years, so I'll just have to rest it at that. But seriously, how would you view that question? Comment.
I'm willing to bet that no sane computer user would ever equate "remove data" with "copy data." But I'm also willing to bet that a legislature might. Suppose, for instance, I told you, "Whatever you do, don't remove any of the documents in this office." It would probably cross your mind, as you photocopied my sensitive documents to take out of the office, that you might be doing a bad thing. Am I right?
A legislature might very well look at those two examples and think that they were related, because they both involve the verb "remove." But when a computer user hears the word remove, he has a pretty definite idea in his mind - that idea being deletion. Now of course the standard for interpreting a computer crime statute is not what a reasonable computer user would think, but what a reasonable person would think.
In this case, I have to ask: why? Who needs to read computer statutes except computer users?