Slashdot Mirror
Share FIles? Get Fired.
The_Other_Kelly writes "The Guardian is running an interesting story, 'File-share defender fired over TV show', where a news organisation, upon discovering that someone who spoke publicly elsewhere to defend p2p file sharing, was one of their employees, promptly fired him.
"
He didn't get fired for sharing anything. He got fired because he earlier run what seems to have been a BitTorrent tracker in his spare time, was sued over it (in a civil case, not a criminal case), and didn't tell his employer when they interviewed him, so they only found out when he talked about it on a TV show.
He argues that he didn't have to mention it since it doesn't have anything to do with his employer, and I think depending on how the interview went exactly, he's probably right. If they actually asked him about whether there were any civil cases pending against him and he lied and said no, then it's understandable that he got fired (it's not like it's a personal question, after all); but if they didn't, then I really think it's their own fault, and he's right in any case when he says that the whole thing simply doesn't affect his employer in any way.
In any case, it's important to note that he did not himself share any files.
quidquid latine dictum sit altum videtur.
IMHO it is the right, indeed the obligation of anyone living in a democracy to question the laws that govern them. Intellectual property laws are increasingly valid targets for such scepticism.
There would be an uproar in most countries if someone was fired for expressing their opinion on abortion, or religion, why should someone's opinion on intellectual property law be any different?
...and I got fired, too.
Er, no, wait...
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
How about acting like an editor for a change and getting rid of the capital 'I' in the story title?!
Nothing is going to change until we shoot the bastards.
Andy Out!
The /. summary is misleading. He didn't just express views; he actually ran a tracker at one point and was sued over it.
Now, you can argue about whether or not it was right of the employer to fire him for that, but they did NOT fire him merely because he spoke out in support of file sharing.
From the Article:
"Mr Hanff has declared that he is opposed to copyright and intellectual property laws. Since much of our business is based around the protection of our copyright and intellectual property, we consider our dismissal of Mr Hanff entirely justified and appropriate."
If true, then they have a good reason;
else begin defamation case
"If the company was an abortion clinic and the opinion expressed by the employee was anti-abortion, then there would be no uproar if they were fired."
Huh? If that was his personal opinion, yes, it *would* cause an uproar.
"all companies insist on a probabtion period of at least a month to see if your face fits, with instant dismissal if you don't."
O, I see, you are talking about the anglo-saxon system. That explains a lot of your reasonings.
Well, since it's in the UK: fair enough.
Note, however, that most of your arguments are completely unvalid if you place them against the employement-ethics and laws of most european countries on the mainland. So, there is nothing 'obvious' or 'natural' about it; it's just that the system is pretty fucked up in the neo-liberal free-market, anglo-saxon style. I would say caution is needed, and not blind acceptance of a mentality that deems it's OK to dismiss an employee because his personal opinion doesn't stroke with that of a company.
But, I know, in the UK and USA, it's the corporations that have the most sway, not the people.
--- "To pee or not to pee, that is the question." ---
At least my story got more than ~80 replied!
:-p
At least my story got more than ~80 replies!
:-p