Judge Lets Sony Access GeoHot's PayPal Account 288
An anonymous reader writes with an excerpt from TechDirt that says "Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero has awarded Sony a subpoena that grants the company access to the PayPal account of PlayStation 3 jailbreaker George Hotz, also known as GeoHot, for the last two years. Emil: Spero ruled that the Japanese console maker may acquire 'documents sufficient to identify the source of funds in California that went into any PayPal account associated with geohot@gmail.com for the period of January 1, 2009, to February 1, 2011.'"
Sony (Score:2, Interesting)
What fucking right do Sony have to pore through his finances? Surely that's a matter for law enforcement and the courts (I know, naive, right?).
Re:Sony (Score:5, Informative)
Since it's a civil suit, law enforcement doesn't really have a right to go through his financial records. There is something called "Discovery" though, where each party in a case can petition the courts to force the other side to turn over pertinent records that they believe could help make their case. Discovery is what gives Sony the right, since they managed to convince a judge that the information there could be constructive to their case.
Re: (Score:2)
can geohot ask to see Sony's and the judge's bank records?
it would be interesting to compare them.
Re: (Score:3)
Geohot's lawyers should.
Of course, the judge is probably going to rule that "irrelevant" and deny it. That Sony-logo'ed swimming pool that magically appeared in his backyard is of course completely unrelated to any judicial rulings...
Re: (Score:3)
When you're suing someone, you are law enforcement. You don't have a right to barge in and demand the records, but you can petition the court to allow you access to them.
Conversely, the defendant here can request a look at all kinds of things Sony might be hiding.
Surely he should petition (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
for Sony's encryption key?
You jest, but how can they claim he infringed their property without disclosing what said property is? It would be like me claiming that Sony is using a huge swath of code they stole from me (protected by encryption & therefore DMCA), but not producing the code that I claim they stole for comparison...
Well, not really, but it's fun to think that way -- Sony will just claim: He's broken the DMCA, we don't have to disclose our actual keys. At which point I would hope that a sane court would rule his D
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They're just using this to try and argue that money came from California, and therefore their crazy insistence that everything be tried there (when Geohot lives and hacks thousands of miles away) must be valid!
I know it's an oft-trotted out meme, that it's hard to know where an act is committed in a case like this. But to me the answer is easy. It was committed where the guy was sitting at the time.
Simply Put (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Simply Put (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Simply Put (Score:5, Interesting)
As far as I know, what he did may have been illegal. Circumvention of copyright protection has been illegal in the US, although recently some of these restrictions have been eased. It's possible that in this case the court will decide the laws are unjust or don't apply. That's how the system works. You're stuck with a bad law until it gets repealed or overturned in court.
In my opinion Sony shot themselves in the foot by removing the other OS feature. I think that really made developers work towards hacking the console more than anything else. To be perfectly honest, there have already been plenty of other reasons not to buy from Sony. This is the straw that broke the camel's back for you? Either way, I'll let you get back to overreacting.
Re:Simply Put (Score:5, Informative)
The defendant is from New Jersey and obviously wants the case tried there, where as having it there would be more costly for Sony.
What do you mean by "more costly for Sony"?
Sony does business in all 50 States. Getting a team of lawers in/to NJ isn't an issue for them.
Sony wants this case heard in California because of the favorable Judicial climate there.
In that sense, allowing the case to be heard in NJ would be costly, but only because it lowers their chances of winning.
Re:Simply Put (Score:4, Insightful)
you forgot the part where it also becomes unreasonably costly for the defendant. that's to Sony's benefit, as it increases likelihood of a settlement.
Re: (Score:2)
but Geohot did not do circumvention. he reverse-engineered (and borrowed heavily from others' work).
i think this is a legal grey area that sony is attempting to resolve into a favorable black-and-white.
Apple haven't gone after jailbreakers yet, have they? MS has benefitted massively from the Kinect hack, and wouldn't dream of chasing those responsible.
i wonder what it is about sony that make them special?
It's a sideshow to distract from the CAS (Score:5, Interesting)
Oh hell no, they're going to arrange to not only him but anyone he sold to? This man did nothing illegal, and they're going to go after the funds he has made from his work. Sony, rot in hell. I will never buy from you again.
Your sentiments are appropriate; I've also been involved in negative word-of-mouth advertising for Sony. Pass the word.
However, this is Sony's effort to prove GeoHot did business in California, where Sony wants the case held. Fishing? Perhaps a bit of that too, I wouldn't put it past them.
The real story, however, is the class action suit (CAS) against Sony for their removal of the OtherOS functionality in update 3.2.1. This is the update that GeoHot's mod reversed.
It's clear to me that Sony wants to muddy the waters as much as possible. The lawsuit is an absolute monster, I wouldn't be surprised if they had to re-brand afterwards. Look to Groklaw.net for clarity, there's a huge amount of detail there.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I've also been involved in negative word-of-mouth advertising for Sony. Pass the word.
*sigh* This BS never ends.
I can assure you that you will have NO effect on Sony, and even less on the personal fortunes of those who make these decisions untl
1) You zero out all your personal debts
2) Remove all your money from the bank. As long as it remains there, Sony gets a piece of it. And to be sure, they probably own a piece of your debt also
This is the only way you can effect their entire portfolio. It applies to ev
Re: (Score:2)
i'm not following you.
what stake do sony have in our collective debts?
the only things i've bought with a sony branding on them in the last 10 years has been digital betacam tapes. i could switch to maxell or fuji, but i'd have to get them from interstate. also, i doubt that represents a huge chunk of their revenue stream.
That's a legal conclusion (Score:4, Insightful)
But first, they have to decide if California is the right place to decide that. Unfortunately, it looks like Illston and Spero are in Sony's pocket on that one.
Corporate rape (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That's what happens when the judge is on the corporate payroll.
Re: (Score:2)
unfortunately until we can prove this, it's an uphill battle.
perhaps someone with strong financial backing could hire some PI's to suss these judges out?
does FOI law cover the judiciary?
just imagine what would happen if multiple lawmakers could be explicitly proven beyond a shadow of a doubt to be in the pockets of sony or some other scumbag company?
this would have to be separate from campaign contributions, which i have a whole other set of problems with.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
of course he does. he was blogging provocatively. he dressed all slutty. he invited corporate rape.
Re:Corporate rape (Score:5, Informative)
Not just Geohot.
There are a variety of others named in the suit, though mostly they are not based in the US and so aren't involved so much.
However there is also graf_chokolo, who has been thoroughly deconstructing the hypervisor and (unlike geo) publishing his work in a very community-oriented way. The guy's fascinaction is complete control of the PS3 and hypervisor from linux (not piracy).
A week or so back he was raided by the German police and much of his equipment confiscated. Now he is being sued by Sony for almost a million dollars.
Please go here and donate if you would like to support the efforts to fend off Sony - http://grafchokolo.com/ [grafchokolo.com]
The guy just doesn't have the public profile that geohot does, but he deserves public support every bit as much.
Sony is dead to me (Score:4, Interesting)
I will never buy anything from them again, and I will do my best to persuade others from doing so.
You're kidding me!? (Score:5, Insightful)
I donated to this guy to help support his legal fund.
What the FUCK is the judge doing on this case? Seriously, this is becoming a complete and utter clusterfuck.
I am a cynical fuck and I'm still surprised, this is just utterly incredible. Geohot has no fucking chance in this, with the way this is being handled.
Utterly ridiculous, his privacy is just being completely ignored.
Re:You're kidding me!? (Score:5, Informative)
They wont have access to your record as the date range Sony is requesting predates his legal fund. I donated $25 to his legal fund. We're both fine.
I imagine what Sony is doing is trying to prove that his motivations are backed by money or something, and they're going to either find Sony competition or something donating large sums of money to him, or some large piracy groups interested in seeing him succeed, and the judge actually thought it was worth looking into.
I think this is bogus to be honest. They should focus on the real problem at hand: did he have the right to modify his PS3?
Re: (Score:2)
They should focus on the real problem at hand: did he have the right to modify his PS3?
Believe me when I say that is absolutely the LAST problem Sony wants considered by the court. Insofar as they are concerned, their EULA expressly forbids such modification, and by coming within 50 feet of a PS3, he agreed to that. There's enough legal precedent for modification that it's possible such things could be permanently eradicated, and if they inadvertently open that Pandora's Box, Sony would be in hot water with all of the copyright holders' associations as well.
Re: (Score:2)
Their eula may have also said he owes them his firstborn. Just because it's in the eula doesn't mean it's enforceable. Too many people have this kneejerk reacction when they hear "eula". And businesses WANT you to believe that of course.
Look in ANY eula and you will find something along the lines of "and if any part of this is unenforceable, it doesn't affect the enforceability of anything else". That's because all eula are littered with unenforceable agreements. Some points you are agreeing legally t
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not worrying about Sony coming after me, I'm wondering what damn business this has to do with the case? It's just a violation of his rights.
Re: (Score:3)
They want the case to be tried in California, where the courts have tended to be favorable to their causes. it's kind of how patent trolls always want to file in a specific (NE?) district in Texas.
In order for that to happen, the court has to be able to claim jurisdiction meaning, essentially, it has to have something to do with California or the laws of California. They're trolling donations to see if they can establish some link to CA that would let the court claim jurisdiction and have the trial ther
Re: (Score:2)
Geohot did something that is probably illegal, and the court is letting the plaintiff discover the facts.
You sue someone some day, and you'll get the same legal right. And you'll be pissed if you didn't.
Re:You're kidding me!? (Score:4, Interesting)
Way, way, far, out of control. Should be, and probably is, completely illegal for them to do that. Where's the constitution when you need it? Oh....forgot, last few administrations have been using it for toilet paper.
Re: (Score:2)
I donated to this guy to help support his legal fund.
I hope you didn't use paypal ;)
Re: (Score:2)
Sony is not a neutral party to this case (Score:4, Insightful)
Sony is not a neutral party to this case. As they are not cops. They have direct involvement into this case. With this a due process is being bypassed and that is illegal in the U.S court system.
This decision by the judge should be sued or somehow protested by GeoHots lawyers.
Re: (Score:2)
Discovery works both ways. GeoHot also has a right to find out what information Sony has, and how Sony plans to attack him legally.
Believe it or not, this is fairly normal for our legal system.
Re:Sony is not a neutral party to this case (Score:4, Interesting)
Discovery does work both ways, but the problem is that those that have donated or otherwise given him money during that time period don't have the ability to fight this. We don't know exactly what they're up to, but I wouldn't put it past Sony to find a reason to drag them into it, with or without cause.
Re: (Score:2)
They can't drag them into it without cause. You have to put the cause on the piece of paper you use to get the court to do the dragging.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
And what, exactly, would the point of "neutral parties" going through the information? Are you going to let them determine what is and is not germane to the defence or prosecution of the case, and only pass along what they deem relevant? While I don't see the point of Sony's move, it is legal, and it's surely not immoral either. Whatever comes after might be immoral though. I'll save my outrage until they start suing people discovered during this inspection.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
i.e. not any other payments to GeoHot, for example relating to other perfectly legal* activities such as iPhone jailbreaks.
* as defined in sections 2,3 of http://www.copyright.gov/1201/2010/Librarian-of-Congress-1201-Statement.html [copyright.gov]
Re:Sony is not a neutral party to this case (Score:5, Interesting)
They just want to find persons in California that has payed to his account so they can say that he got connections to California so the case can be tried there.
Re: (Score:2)
What difference would it make if he did? Does getting money from a California resident through an intermediary give a California Federal Court personal jurisdiction over you? Does it make a court in California the proper venue for a case where the defendant is located in New Jersey?
Re: (Score:2)
More to the point the information that would be gathered by the subpoena has nothing to do with the core case. Subpoenas given regarding information about third parties cannot be given without informing said third party unless the information is specifically in regards to the core case. This information has nothing to do with GeoHot bypassing copyright protection. This is in reference to Sony getting to keep the case in California, and should not be allowed without giving all third parties notice. At lea
Is it too late? (Score:2)
I really wanted Bluray to win because HD-DVD was from the Microsoft camp. Not that I'm anti-M$, (I'm closer to being Pro-M$ - esp. since I started developing in Netbeans - ew) I just didn't want them to win (for a change). But I've got to say this whole episode makes me think that now I wish it had gone the other way. Someone does something that DOESNT allow piracy, that allows people to have a better chance of using THEIR hardware the way they choose to, and Sony bend him over backwards
Re: (Score:3)
You've failed to establish that Sony's license permitted users to use what GeoHot did.
I'm sure GeoHot will be trying to establish that. But you didn't.
And unless you or GeoHot can establish that, your argument doesn't hold any merit.
Sure, turning off formerly-blessed OS functionality is douchey. But if the license permitted Sony to do that and prohibited users from circumventing Sony's code, then tough.
Unless somehow GeoHot can convince a court to void Sony's license terms. Until then, this is going to l
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Is it too late? (Score:5, Informative)
You might want to read the plain-text court transcripts on this case over at www.groklaw.net. PJ's work there is commendable, and the actual court transcripts are there to back up what she says.
The license really didn't permit Sony to do that.
The class-action suit against Sony regarding removal of OtherOS, and whether their license actually did permit that behaviour, or whether their use of warranty to claim the right, makes for some truly fascinating reading (I read the lot yesterday). I'd suggest popcorn, at the very least.
It's one hell of a class-action suit against Sony and it does not paint them in a particularly favourable light. What's more, the outcome of that case may well directly affect that of their case against GeoHot. Is it illegal to circumvent an illegal action, or is it self-defense? Tune into Groklaw. As the news arrives, you'll find the court transcripts there. That stuff's definitive, not mere opinion.
Look for "The Sony Class Action's First Amended Complaint, as text - Updated"
Re: (Score:2)
It takes a lot... (Score:2)
...for me to actively wish bodily harm upon someone. That magistrate is on thin ice.
This has to stop (Score:5, Insightful)
My cotton swab argument (Score:2)
The box says "Do not insert into ear canal". Should everybody who uses one to remove earwax have legal action taken against them?
Re: (Score:2)
Sony is essentially saying that the key is a copyright circumvention device. (No need to argue that point, I disagree too) They may be making other claims as well in that general direction but I'm too tired to go over this crap again.
This isn't about him modifying his own stuff. It's about him sharing the information so others can do what he did.
Re:This has to stop (Score:5, Insightful)
It's funny to me. In the 1950's we feared the "commies" and their lack of respect for property and ownership rights, but in the end it's the capitalists who are actually managing to strip those rights bit by bit (for everyone but themselves, that is).
countdown to public backlash? (Score:2)
remote possibility (Score:2)
It's possible that the judge wants sony to find a good, solid reason to keep it in CA, so that he can rule against them later on. If he shines it on to NJ, he loses control of the case.
PayPal (Score:5, Interesting)
If that cash went through a real bank, would the outcome be the same?
PayPal's weird semi-bank-state allows for legal action I never heard of otherwise.
Whats the email account? (Score:2)
I want to send some more money to him but to the account they are trying to get records for. Maybe if we get 1000's of people donating a few cents it'll make it a pain in the ass for Sony.
Re: (Score:2)
At this time, Sony only has rights to look up until February 1st 2011.
FTFY
We're not helping his cause by doing this... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Which should be quite amusing when Sony gets around to doing discovery on it.
GAH (Score:2)
GeoHot doesn't just crack PS3's (Score:2)
Perhaps Sony knows there are more iPhones per capita in CA than any other state and could be using the confusion to sway the court.
Just wondering (Score:2)
Who here is "against Sony's actions" while at the same time own any Sony equipment... especially a PS3?
I gotta tell you, I started hating Sony long ago and it played a role in my decision not to own anything Sony. And as the years went by, my feelings about Sony were only reinforced.
But I wonder about you people out there hating Sony too, but at the same time buying their stuff.
EULA is a contract. EULA attempts to restrain... (Score:4, Interesting)
TITLE 15 > CHAPTER 1 > Â 1 [cornell.edu]
 1. Trusts, etc., in restraint of trade illegal; penalty
Every contract, combination in the form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, is declared to be illegal. Every person who shall make any contract or engage in any combination or conspiracy hereby declared to be illegal shall be deemed guilty of a felony, and, on conviction thereof, shall be punished by fine not exceeding $100,000,000 if a corporation, or, if any other person, $1,000,000, or by imprisonment not exceeding 10 years, or by both said punishments, in the discretion of the court.
 2. Monopolizing trade a felony; penalty
Every person who shall monopolize, or attempt to monopolize, or combine or conspire with any other person or persons, to monopolize any part of the trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, shall be deemed guilty of a felony, and, on conviction thereof, shall be punished by fine not exceeding $100,000,000 if a corporation, or, if any other person, $1,000,000, or by imprisonment not exceeding 10 years, or by both said punishments, in the discretion of the court.
 14. Sale, etc., on agreement not to use goods of competitor
It shall be unlawful for any person engaged in commerce, in the course of such commerce, to lease or make a sale or contract for sale of goods, wares, merchandise, machinery, supplies, or other commodities, whether patented or unpatented, for use, consumption, or resale within the United States or any Territory thereof or the District of Columbia or any insular possession or other place under the jurisdiction of the United States, or fix a price charged therefor, or discount from, or rebate upon, such price, on the condition, agreement, or understanding that the lessee or purchaser thereof shall not use or deal in the goods, wares, merchandise, machinery, supplies, or other commodities of a competitor or competitors of the lessor or seller, where the effect of such lease, sale, or contract for sale or such condition, agreement, or understanding may be to substantially lessen competition or tend to create a monopoly in any line of commerce.
You funded terrorism (Score:4, Informative)
Congratulations to everyone who bought a PS3. You have funded terrorism. Sony will now use this money to scare the piss out of you. Will you give them more?
If you give Sony money, you are the enemy of gaming and freedom, and you are an enemy of mine. I only wish Slashdot permitted a longer foes list.
It is long past the time when we can pretend that where we spend our money does not shape our environment. It's called Capitalism, people.
Re:Looks like they'll have my name... (Score:5, Informative)
I donated $50.
Not if you donated to his legal fund. The legal fund donations only started AFTER Feb 1st.
This time period only covers donations made during the time period is was actually working on the hacks.
Re: (Score:2)
I donated $50.
I'd be worried if I were you: Sony is eventually going to try to claim you're guilty of "funding a conspiracy to commit electronic economic terrorism" or something. Then if a certain cable news network gets on board, who knows where you could end up?
Re:Looks like they'll have my name... (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't think so. Their PR is bad enough as it is, and it's pretty clear that judges are getting exasperated with the trend of corporations suing thousands of individuals at once for eleven billion dollars and a lifetime prison sentence.
Their move is an obvious effort to get people to stop donating. The only sensible response from people is to donate more, to show them that it won't work and to make sure the number of people on the list is too large to arrest all of them without resulting in public outrage and that greatest of legal offenses, pissing off the judge.
Re: (Score:3)
That's not how law works. If there are 100 identical cases and the first one has a certain decision then, unless appeals are involved, the rest basically inherit the same decision by precedent. There's no point at which a judge can get tired of doing his job and change his mind on the verdict. And you could really only argue abuse of process if the plaintiff is losing every time; if the
Re:Looks like they'll have my name... (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Looks like they'll have my name... (Score:5, Insightful)
Haven't you noticed that for transnational corporations, "bad PR" is the new black? They just don't care how bad their PR is, because they're going to get your money one way or the other.
That's the beauty of being a transnational corporation. You can get your hands in so many pies that there's no way not to be their customer. Whether you play a PS3 or watch a movie or listen to the radio or tv or have a company that uses heavy equipment. Government contracts, supplier contracts, intellectual property. Even if you think you're boycotting Sony, you're giving Sony money somewhere, somehow. And even if you manage to be so well-informed, so well-organized that you've managed to live your life without buying anything that's made by Sony or one of their "strategic partners", there's all the patents and copyrights that they can use to sue the companies that you do buy stuff from, so your money goes to them that way.
This is where "free markets" break down. Once a corporation has reached a certain point, there is no marketplace any more. How you gonna "boycott" Haliburton, when just by driving a car you're putting money in Haliburton's pocket. Just by heating your house.
The whole world is a company store now, and we all owe our souls.
To paraphrase a Buddhist proverb, If you meet John Galt walking on the road, kill him.
Re:Looks like they'll have my name... (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
They sell entertainment gear
And lots of entertainment too. Sony Pictures Entertainment, Sony Music Entertainment, and Columbia Pictures.
Re: (Score:3)
Good point. And who are they going to get to enforce their contracts? Who's going to do their collections?
And how are you going to collect your refunds?
Or maybe in a "free market" there would be no need for lawsuits and contracts because everyone would be honest and forthright and nobody would ever lie.
Are they, now? You know what else is antithetical to a free mar
Re: (Score:3)
You should follow this by "for State Senator {any popular "family-values" senator's name}" to make sure nobody will ever use your checks as evidence.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
People are still donating to Scott Roeder's defense fund and he walked into a church and assassinated a doctor.
I wonder what would happen if Planned Parenthood sued to get a list of those donors. Actually, that reminds me. Time to send P.P. my family's annual donation.
Re: (Score:2)
Not to Wiki you, but do you have a few links for that (genuinely interested).
Also, did people donate via Paypal, or other means?
Re: (Score:2)
WTH is your point exactly? Oh and your tin hat is slipping, my satellite can see you.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Who, the Japanese? No. They did this one time conduct a long-distance aerial bombardment of a tourist trap, but they were forgiven for that, eventually, after the people they attacked dropped an atomic bomb on them. And there's that business with the death marches and such.
Currently they're trying to nuke themselves, in between forming chirpy girl groups and dressing up like comic-book characters.
They're also, per capita, the wealthiest people on the planet.
Interesting folks.
Re:Is this a fishing expedition or what? (Score:5, Interesting)
There are two things here.
1 - Sony wants the case fought in California where their offices are, because it is cheaper and more convenient for them there. It is also more expensive for GeoHot in California, and it less likely he can afford to go to trial. By running him out of legal defense funds and keeping the case in California, they might force him to settle. Unless there is a smoking gun, such as the majority of the donations coming from California, this really shouldn't keep the case there.
2 - Secondly, Sony wants to sue others, not just GeoHot. They're trying to get info via discovery to do precisely that.
Re:Is this a fishing expedition or what? (Score:5, Interesting)
The cost of fighting in CA vs NJ is immaterial for a company like Sony. Corporations use venue shopping all the time to find favorable jurisdictions, and this is almost certainly why they want the case tried in the northern district of CA. This becomes crystal clear when you look at the history of decisions by this particular judge, both in this case and others (e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/321_Studios_v._Metro_Goldwyn_Mayer_Studios,_Inc. [wikipedia.org]).
Re: (Score:2)
But what you gonna do, take her out back and shoot here (in joke from Groklaw).
Haven't been a sony customer for either hardware or media in some decades. See no reason to change that now.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Wait...I thought PayPal *wasn't* a bank unless you were in the EU, which was what let them get away with some of the shit they pull?
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
You seem to think that Sony needs permission to harass people. That is hilarious, especially because at this rate they will sue for the identity of every person who has ever read an article critical of them so that they, too, may be harassed.
Protip: if Sony sues everyone even vaguely involved with a certain act, giving them a new list of people will result in more people being sued.
Re: (Score:2)
It is in Luxembourg.
Regardless, financial records is financial records. If the court says Sony can look as part of discovery, then that's what they can do.
Re: (Score:2)
Hamm [wikipedia.org] would probably be a bank in Luxembourg..
Re: (Score:2)
Try that again, only this time without equating the deaths of thousands of Sony employees with the inability of some pimply suburban kid to surf for pr0n and warez on his game console...
Re: (Score:2)
It's not possible to transact electronic currency outside the normal banking system (PayPal's own bank account suffices as its inside avatar).
You can't just throw bits with ascii '$' codes at banks' modem ports and expect them to know from whom to debit the credit you're trying to deposit.
To make it work, you'd have to hack the banks, or the clearinghouses.
Re: (Score:3)
Woooo! Astroturf and Godwin Too!!
Think it'll work?
Re:You guys are hillarious. (Score:5, Informative)
- Thomas Hesse, President of Sony Music Entertainment's Global Digital Business, US Sales, and Corporate Strategy.
Re: (Score:2)
You beat me to it AC. But you have to forgive Sony. I know their little scheme in this move. They are looking into geohot's paypal to find out how willing are the geek to donate money, grab our emails, then send us some flyers to donate to their earthquake fund.
Seriously, I am wondering if Sony is helping the country at this moment.