he claims it was simply the online, freely downloadable image. the fact he sold to resellers make it even less shady. he sold a service to the resellers? or sa

he claims it was simply the online, freely downloadable image. the fact he sold to resellers make it even less shady. he sold a service to the resellers? or saved users time/bandwidth/trouble of burning image on botable cd? any way you try to spin this will still go against comon sense the whatever spirit of the laws that are not "license to sue anything under the sun, because IP"