I agree that it has good chance of turning out badly and could be used to bolster support for Sony both in the public eye and in court, but how do you drive hom

I agree that it has good chance of turning out badly and could be used to bolster support for Sony both in the public eye and in court, but how do you drive home the point to someone hiding behind a corporate veil? Corporate execs can make all the destructive decisions they want and can almost universally avoid being held accountable. Circumventing that protection and making it personal is a pretty obvious choice, even if it's the wrong one. It also appears very poignant to me since Anon's actions basically mirror Sony's.