Slashdot Mirror
Fired from an IP Law Firm for Anti-DRM Views?
dchallender writes to tell us that Inga Chernyak, recently featured in a VillageVoice piece entitled "Code Warriors", has been fired from an IP firm in NYC for having "incompatible views". From the article: "I was, and still am, a student interested in the scope of copyright law, and determined to pursue a career in the field. I wanted to gain an understanding both of the theory of copyright, which my work with FC provided, and its practice. The firm exposed me to the day to day operations of an IP lawyer, and I was nothing if not receptive to these lessons. I was baffled that someone saw fit to fire me over an expression of dissenting views. Doesn't the field become richer when the wider spectrum of legal thought is explored and encouraged?"
Quite simply Inga chose the wrong firm to work for, although it is evident that along the journey to enlightenment this nugget has been gleaned: At least one firm exists solely for the advancement and purpose of IP litigation. Perhaps outraged at the public display of attitude which may shy potential customers away to a firm less questioning and more aggressive in pursuing IP matters.
Best to learn about your employer early rather than find you are at odds with or questioning their business model, after you have banked your future on them. Probably also best to test the waters inside before saying things outside. The head(s) of the firm may be of the opinion that minions do not speak their mind to the press, should the public get the idea the firm or even IP Law firms in general, tend to question the legitimacy of their role.
"Of course you want to sue! How would we make a living if you didn't sue? Be reasonable, you can't have thousands of lawyers out of work, wandering the streets asking for hand-outs and eating from rubbish bins, because everyone just gets along, why, we'd sue for restraint of trade!"
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
Doesn't the field become richer when the wider spectrum of legal thought is explored and encouraged
Yes in fact it does, but the wider spectrum is provided by others at universities, the EFF and other firms. Your IP firm wants to tow the party line as that is what their customers want, and it is the customers that pay the bills.
That really is what it all boils down to isn't it?
-nB
whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump
"Hey, I work for the DEA, but in my spare time I an editor for High Times"
-Another asshat
About the same thing.
Doesn't the field become richer when the wider spectrum of legal thought is explored and encouraged?
The problem, I think, is that you and your firm hold different meanings for the term "richer," you meaning intellectually while they think fiscally.
It sounds like someone has learned a life lesson about what kind of "richer" the legal profession is preoccupied with.
Now before I get modded down, I be to remind whoever might read this that what I am saying is FACT. - bogaboga
What does DRM have to do with IP lawyers? It seems to me that IP lawyers should be most interested in seeing infringement so they have more work to do, not supporting something that prevents infringement. It's like how some day all dentists will be out of business because of the increasing technology in dental care, such as fluoride. Why support something that will put you out of business?
I am utterly shocked to learn that there are lawyers out there whose sole motivations are money and power, and that they don't care to further advance the development of society as a whole...
(society as a hole, on the other hand...)
This guy's the limit!
"Doesn't the field become richer when the wider spectrum of legal thought is explored and encouraged?"
(DRM advocate): No.
"Bother," said Pooh, as lightning knocked out hi%#&(F*@NO CARRIER
Stop being naive. A law firm wants little robots that bill endlessly and don't question the status quo. A better lawyer would recognize this and either tow the line or move on. I'm not saying anything about being right or wrong, just be smarter about your career.
"Doesn't the field become richer when the wider spectrum of legal thought is explored and encouraged?"
No offense, but are you seriously this naive, or are you just trolling?
ah.clem
"Life is not magic." Dr. Ron Weiss - "If we don't play God, who will?" Dr. James Watson
You're not a greedy bastard like us, sorry. You're fired.
I've become addicted to Overlawyered and after reading some of the stunts that lawyers pull, this doesn't surprise me. I understand the argument for having dissenting views for a healthy dialog. But the truth is a lot of lawyers are in it to (surprise, surprise) make money. And if you're not going to help them make money, you can head elsewhere.
"It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education." -Albert Einstein
1. Being surprised that an IP law firm doesn't want anti-DRM people working there.
2. The Village Voice wasting any resources on printing/posting this information.
Is the author of the article 12?
bun-fhuinneog agam!
"Over a cup of tea on Carmine Street, NYU junior Inga Chernyak explains how to break current copyright law. All it takes, Chernyak explains, is one finger on the Shift key while you put a CD in your computer, disabling corporate-installed software designed to prevent you from copying music. Just downloading a fairly purchased, DRM-protected CD from a laptop to an iPod amounts, in most cases, to a federal misdemeanor. "If I bought a CD that had DRM"--the software that blocks duplication--"I would obviate it," Chernyak says, carefully. "If there are laws I believe are wrong, I will break them." And she's just talking about Shift keys."
Let's say you own a law firm that works for sony.
Is this the kind of person you want working at your firm?
This is like working in the narcotics department of a police station and then having an article widely published about how you like to smoke dope on the weekend, giving instructions to the readers on how to grow your own.
She publicly stated that her views are not just different to, but DIRECTLY opposed to the aims of her employer. I would not trust her to not to be subversive at the company she works for, and I agree with her employer's decision.
If you have spent your life building up a law firm based on IP law, and your clients come to you to defend their IP rights and patent rights, and you've got an employee running around talking about why those laws blow, it doesn't really inspire faith in your firm. If I work for Ford and decide to write articles bashing domestic cars, I expect to be dismissed. This guy is an idiot.
"I have never won a debate with an ignorant person." -Ali ibn Abi Talib
I'm president of the local chapter of NORML. I was fired from my job as a DEA agent...can you believe that? I didn't take the job to be subversive, but rather to learn about the very thing I oppose...just from the other side.
Anyone know where I can publish an article on this grave injustice?
That's what most people ask when many of our universities frown upon the idea.
There's money to be made on both sides DRM.
In a word: No.
You clearly do not understand business when you utter a remark like that. Business is not in the business of diversity of views. They're not out there with the intent of enriching the field. They want to get the job done that they're getting paid for as efficiently as possible.
Even if you never do anything hostile to that business, you have announced yourself as a liability. Now as long as you remain (yes you're gone because of this) you would have to have been watched over to ensure that your personal views and ethics didn't harm the business. That takes another person's time to check your work, which costs money. You're like a known anti-abortion advocate working at Planned Parenthood.
They cut their losses by cutting you. Consider it a gift. You and that business are not a good match for each other and both will be happier working with people of a like mind.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
Maybe she should go to law school and work for EFF. I mean, she's a junior in college at age 19 and she got fired because it made some of her bosses uncomfortable. Happens all the time in the real world.
--b
grow richer with pro-western viewpoints in the organization?
does the GOP grow richer with kanye west in the party?
why would anyone expect an IP law firm to grow richer by considering the possibility that- gasp, horror, corporate takeover of the public domain might be a bad thing?
IP lawyers are the enemy, plain and simple
they are not neutral rhetorical territory
they are partisans with a vested interest
they make their bread and butter helping corporations extend the idea of ownership into more and more absurd and esoteric regions of intellectual and cultural spaces
you would have better luck asking a mosquito if it could change it's diet from blood to piss
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Doesn't the field become richer when the wider spectrum of legal thought is explored and encouraged?
Perhaps, but this isn't the bottom line.
The IP Law Firm becomes richer only if their clients feel that said firm, as a whole, is on their side of the argument. Its simply bad for business to be on the public record as having employees that maintain (potentially) conflicting views with their clientbase. If anything, I'd expect to see such an employee mantaining a keen aversion to recording any opinion on the matter, in any way.
Its like working for GM and driving your new Toyota to work: dumb.
She said "If there are laws I believe are wrong, I will break them."
She works for a law firm.
A law firm can't employ someone who is publicly advocating breaking the law.
A law firm shouldn't employ someone who, for all intents and purposes, wrote "I hate our clients." in a public forum.
We're running out of legal reasons to fire someone. Put yourself in the shoes of the firm. What do you have to gain by having an employee not be a team player to do and think in a way that meshes with what the firm's business partners' and patrons' weapon of choice to fight piracy? A liability. And where the hell do Constitutional issues come from in the article? I don't see any federal governments firing employees.
Move along. Nothing to see here.
GetOuttaMySpace - The Anti-Social Network
There exist at least the following two definitions of "richer": (1) Deeper, more complex, more broad in scope, and (2) Having more money.
History has shown that homogeneity of views (read: monopoly) is a faster track to #2 (though obviously not #1).
So, in a sense, the field becomes "richer" (more moolah!) when they all think the same.
With spending like this, exactly what are "conservatives" conserving?
She should have quit, rather than trying earn her living working with people whose ideas she opposes. But since she didn't quit on her own, she's just another mealy-mouthed hypocrite.
This seems to be less a question of "views" than yapping to a reporter about how she's fearlessly committing (supposedly) a DMCA violation. Being a attention-seeking, self-dramatizing, "gasping" civil disobedient isn't going to go over so well with your law firm.
As always, I'd at least credit people like this with some courage if they didn't start bawling when they find the trouble they went looking for.
What I'm listening to now on Pandora...
If my employer intends to monitor and regulate what I do when off work, I expect to be paid my full amount, including overtime, on a basis of working 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. If this were done -at- work, I can understand it, but there is nothing wrong with working in a field while still advocating change. It is, in fact, one of our most fundamental rights to advocate change-and if exercising that means you can't get a job, you effectively don't have it.
To fight the war on terror, stop being afraid.
Once I realized that there was no match, I told them that I didn't believed in s/w patents, and if that was going to be a problem, thank you, but no thank you.
Seeing this guy's scenario, I'm glad I walked out without getting into a similar mess.
That means that I could not have taken work anywhere within 50+ miles of Dallas that built, repaired, or sold computers or computer accessories. Oh, well...I promptly violated that contract seven months later and went to work for a competitor that paid significantly more money.
Maybe that's what those contracts are about. It's not about trade secrets, it's about intimidating employees by not giving them a way out.
120 characters for a sig? That's bloody useless.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I was baffled that someone saw fit to fire me over an expression of dissenting views.
As far as you know, but in the real world people get fired all the time for stupid things....something as simple as 'not being a team player' to 'mp3s were found on your hard drive.'
Look at it this way, if the firm was so lame as to fire you over your own views, you probably wouldn't have lasted long there anyway. Most likely, you would find a better job with people that are more respectful. Good luck and hopefully you will find a workplace that listens to your opinions.
He who knows best knows how little he knows. - Thomas Jefferson
I'd call her naïve.
She must have thought lawyers existed for the purpose of enforcing the law that the congress has made to benefit us, the citizens.
In other words, she fell for all that bullshit she was taught at law school.
Worse, she believed that by being sincere and honest (what lawyer isn't sincere and honest? O:) ) about how stupid and practically impossible to enforce some laws are, she might be able to change the world.
I can imagine her face when she realized IP lawyers are nothing but vampires getting rich by suing poor people according to their clients' whims.
In a country where the Law only supports the rich and powerful, it is my obligation as a human being to fight against that law. Either in the courts / congress, or in the 'net. I choose the 'net, but this girl has the opportunity to fight in the courts.
I'd appreciate it if she joined the EFF and aid the people in a just cause.
Please give us the name of the firm so we can Slashdot their site off the web and overload their phone system into oblivion! Nasty assholes!
You were fired for enfringing a thought patent.
A DRM software by principle is a trojan horse and is illegal under computer crime laws in almost all states of the western hemisphere.
The IP firm is first and foremost a business.. the educational aspects are secondary in all ways to this. Would you have expected them to send this new person on a trip to an out of state seminar just for learning purposes. That is what self funded university education is for(lifelong learning, CEU's) . His boss and his company have certain realities that they are faced with each day from all sides. His boss knows what the DRM "realities " are. He is faced with and is working with these each day. If he fails or loses focus, he will be out of a job or lose respect. Financial rewards will stop coming. Change the system so his company is not rewarded for supporting anti competitive practices. A cycle of apprenticeship and then striking out on your own is a time tested system and encourages growth. Since this case resides in the practice of law .. don't for an instant think that litigation is a better or more effective avenue for change. Move on from such a company and find or create one that suits your beliefs. Don't expect him to change. you have no idea how much work and life he has invested in the current system.
I agree that the field is made richer(in knowledge), based on what you say there. It's paramount that views both pro and con, for and against, etc, must be viewed, reviewed, and that we be allowed to have them, especially when it comes to law and politics. Problem is, you were thinking that an IP firm actually cares about what's "good for the people."
Your dissenting views aren't good for IP Law and politics as a business mechanism. If the firm stands to become richer(in money), then your views of dissention cannot be tolerated. IP Law is a nasty thing in general and Copyright is not what it was meant to be.
They have become tools of the few with the money and power to corrupt things which ought not to be for the good of the people and do so in the name of righteous law and governance.
While I find your yearning for understanding and knowledge of great import to what's missing in the "Field" the "Business" you entered won't hear of it. The larger problem is also that "Law" as a business isn't good for the people regardless of what type of Law you work in. I'm sure that there is a point system or quota of some sort that many of these types of firms meet, even if you're not privy to them. Not much different from traffic cops in my mind, unfortunately, because they are tools of governments and powerful individuals as well and can be used for corrupt purposes when pointed in the right direction.
I'm cynical on these points, but until someone doesn't get fired because of dissenting views regarding the government, their industry, etc, especially in what I consider to be a "learn`ed" field, my cynicism will probably not be abated.
--SuperBug
Lawyers are not hired on the basis of their beliefs, they're hired because they will argue whatever you pay them to argue. A good lawyer is capable of arguing that up is actually down, a black cat is really white, and that you really didn't stab your wife and her lover thirty-seven times even though he/she knows you're guilty as sin. If you don't believe in DRM but can argue effectively for it, you're an asset to your company.
a) pen name/alias
b) freedom of speech... what freedom of speech?
"Doesn't the field become richer when the wider spectrum of legal thought is explored and encouraged?"
Please, drop the flowery rhetoric and put the idealism away for just one second. Examine this from a practical perspective.
Who do the vast majority of IP law firms represent?
A) People that want to abolish IP laws/support
B) People that want IP laws/support
If the selected answer is 'A' you're not lawyer material. Next question:
According to the guidelines of professional practice, which most applies:
A) Represent your client with vigor for only the points of law you agree with
B) Represent your client with vigor regardless of personal view to make sure the rule of law is preserved (regardless of whether the outcome is "right")
If the selected answer is 'A' you're not lawyer material. Think about it. As a lawyer, you are *representing* your client. You ARE the client by proxy in the eyes of the law. Read court opinions. They don't say "plaintiff's/defendant's counsel argues X." They do say "plaintiff/defendant argues X." I guarantee you, none of the REAL parties to a suit drafted ANYTHING the court reads and bases its decision on. So the court's reference to plaintiff and defendant clearly means to refer to the actual party and the counsel as a single entity.
So given the results from the two questions above, I find it completely reasonable that the firm would choose to let a dissenting opinion go. Because the client will eventually get word that a lawyer who doesn't agree with their philosophy is working on their case. Whether that lawyer does a fantastic job or not is irrelevant. The client's rights are at risk, not to mention a large some of money for legal services, and even the appearance of a conflict between the client's and the lawyer's ideology could be enough for the client to find another firm.
Again, think about it. Some belligerent jackass hits you without reason. He lands a couple blows to the head before he's restrained. You go look for an attorney to file a claim for battery. You meet with one that says, "Yeah, I'll take your case although I don't personally believe in recovering money damages in the case of a fist-fight--use of a weapon, maybe, but not fists." How quickly will you say "thanks, but no thanks?" And if you say "that doesn't matter to me" you are lying through your teeth and you know it.
And even if you are duped into giving this attorney your case, can you really be sure the arguments made allowed for the proper remedy allowed under the law? Or might the arguments have been influenced by the underlying "no money justified" philosophy of the lawyer, resulting in less persuasion, and hence a lower remedy?
If you don't like DRM, you're probably not right for the IP field. It's like being a construction worker that hates buildings.
"if there are laws I believe are wrong, I will break them,"
I find it reasonable that a law firm fires an employee who states publicly that she will consciously break the law.
Making that statement without understanding the repercussions, she lacks basic common sense that I would expect for a legal beagle.
We need a new reaffirmation of our human rights under corporate rule. But that's exactly what Alito, Roberts, Scalia and Thomas will NOT rule for. They will rule that a company can fire whom it likes, and the constitution is not applicable.
I sure as hell hope they don't make up new laws based upon their own concept of social justice. That isn't their purpose. I want them to judge claims based upon the rule of law. In this case, this is NOT a violation of any law. You are free to say whatever you believe, but to claim that private individuals can't judge you on what you say is absolutely silly. What is the purpose of speech if you can't act on it?
The idea, you see, is not that they would fire hire for wrongthought, but that you should be outraged that private free speech is forbidden if you want a paycheck.
This guy was an idiot, pure and simple. Don't work for an IP law firm and tell a reporter that you break laws that you disagree with. Telling people that you intentionally break the law is a damn good way to convince someone that you are NOT to be trusted with defending a client whom you might disagree with. If you can't stand defending someone whom you disagree with and keeping silent about your descent in public, DON'T BE A DEFENSE LAWYER.
This isn't an alien concept. If you walk into a job interview and express personal opinions that clearly are not compatible with the company you are trying to work for, they are not going to hire your. Once you get in the foot in the door that suddenly doesn't give you a free run of the mill to do whatever you want; that goes double and triple if you tell a law firm you think it is okay to break laws you disagree with.
No business should have the power to deny individual liberties guaranteed under the constitution and under "natural law". Period.
No one is being denied liberty here. He is free to hold whatever personal opinions he wants. He can tell the world about his opinions. He just shouldn't expect to not be fired. In the same way I can kick you off of my property if you come to my house and start insulting me, a company can kick you off the payroll if you are stupid enough to make remarks that are clearly not compatible with being an employee there.
He just needs to find a law firm that isn't going to be nervous about a guy who gives interviews telling reporters about how he breaks laws he disagree with.
The important point is that freedom of speech doesn't give you a free pass against people judging you on your speech. If you say something stupid, people can decide they don't want deal with you. That is exactly what happened in this case. This guy said something stupid, and the company he worked for decided that they didn't want to work with him any more. Welcome to adulthood and responsibility.
Doesn't the field become richer when the wider spectrum of legal thought is explored and encouraged?
Yes, but Inga went farther than that. Inga demonstrated sympathy with those whom her employer intended to prosecute. That isn't what she's paid for. I would have let her go, too.
(That is, if I supported DRM and all that. For the record, I wouldn't be caught dead working in a place like that.)
"Doesn't the field become richer when the wider spectrum of legal thought is explored and encouraged?"
Its not certain that DRM will make any more money for the companies. Many people take it for granted even if its not tested in the real world. A backside of too much DRM might as well be a boon for real artists again, the kind that takes the stage for fun and not just for profit. The media companies is desperate to make more money and they have mistakenly put quality aside for the sake of limiting users rights. Who will buy your product when its a PITA to use and not contain any real value?
Imagine Microsoft succeding in making Windows Vista totally impossible to use pirated software on. It would make people use cheaper software since today not many i know really owns licenses for even half the software they have installed. When they use that cheaper software (because they cant d/l photoshop from p2p) they will want to use the same at their companies. Do the software industry really push users towards other cheaper software like OSS and freeware etc? Thats something they need to think through real hard before they push DRM with full force.
HTTP/1.1 400
So is New York a "Right to Work" state?
"We're gonna need a bigger boat"
only in enriching themselves.
That said, I'll also add that I wholeheartedly support an employer's right to employ or not whomever they want for whatever reason (and if their narrow views cause them to lose market, either because "the market" chooses to shun them due to their attitudes or because their lack of perspective makes them a poorer choice for "the market", then so be it.)
This space intentionally left (almost) blank.
Hey, lady, it's hard to feel sorry for yet another lawyer.
Law by definition is about contraints and coercion.
It has nothing whatever to do with freedom - never has, never will.
Get a clue.
Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
Seriously, how long would I last working for the EFF if I was giving public interviews saying that DRM was good and the Sony-rootkit was good. Huh? Come on!!!
They might be a little more savvy in how they got rid of me, but I would not last. How is this different?
While you may be right in the example you give, in point of fact given the choice between two lawyers of equal ability, I'd prefer to hire the one that actually believes in what they're doing.
And maybe, just maybe... that's one aspect of our judicial system that's gone horribly wrong.
But if you go around saying that the white cat is actually white, and up is actually up, your firm is not going to trust you to tow the line when the chips are down.
But being anti-invasion is correct and obvious. The naysayers were right; there were no weapons, the inspectors were booted out before they could pronounce Iraq clean, we were lied to, the CIA was made the fall guy, and we, as George HW Bush predicted, are mired in a occupation that can only end in failure.
Anyone pro-Bush at this time has amnesia.
Bushites were wrong, anti-Bushies were right. That's reality-based, not truthiness based. If Slashdot moderation kicks pro-Bush comments down, then they merely reflect the national political consensus. The majority think Bush lied, the majority think he should be impeached and removed if so, the majority think we are in deep trouble. The poll numbers are steady with Bush at 37-40 percent approval ratings.
Pro-war people are a distinct, and WRONG, minority. What you are complaining about doesn't reflect "bias"; what you are displaying is cognitive dissonance. You think that the war is doing well, Bush is a great leader, and commie hippy types have invaded with their "bias". The truth is you are becoming a dismissed minority, a fringe group that watches a Balkanized political news feed from Fox, MS-NBC, and sadly, CNN after its "cultural change" under the new regime that wants a "balanced" CNN. You are becoming a marginalized cult.
Damned near nobody else on the planet shares your war views. They don't see American news outlets. They see actual news. They're informed, we're not. They've been anti-Bush since he used 9-11 to invade Iraq. If we take them into account, you're not a 39% minority, you're more like 5%! Pro-Bush people are right up their with communists with mindshare of the wired world.
Since most Bushites think only a dismissed minority disagrees with them, they keep experiencing shock when they meet up with the pissed-off majority, and deny its reality, and disparage their motivations and affiliations.
The thing to keep in mind is, as Orwell said, delusional nations meet up with reality eventually, usually on a battlefield. We're on ours. We've slaughtered between 33,000 and 100,000 innocent people, killed over 2000 of our own troops. We're going to be kicked out of Iraq one way or another. NO ONE is on our side, because we are wrong. This is not a coffee house political argument. People have been burned and shot and blown up and tortured, TODAY, and there will be a cost. The trick is not to let Bushists take the results of our mistakes -- angry billion muslims who want us to die -- and use it as retroactive justification for the killing. (Look! We were right! They're blowing us up everywhere! TERRORIST MONSTERS! Kill more of them before they kill us! Craaaazzzzy people want us dead...)
Time was when I'd have been thoroughly surprised at this level of naivete. Here lately, not so much...
A Series Of Tubes - The Remix
"Lawyers are not hired on the basis of their beliefs..." That and the rest of that paragraph may be true for the ideal lawyer, but when you have clients who don't know this and simply think, "this firm has lawyers with views opposed to ours," well, you have to fire the guy no matter how good he is at holding back his views during work(err... you don't have to fire him, it just makes business sense).
--
WHO ATE MY BREAKFAST PANTS?
"A good lawyer is capable of arguing that up is actually down, a black cat is really white, and that you really didn't stab your wife and her lover thirty-seven times even though he/she knows you're guilty as sin."
I wouldn't say that was a "good" lawyer, but rather a "skilled" lawyer.
I have been thinking about this for a couple of years:
I'm not sure that it is right for any lawyer, even the guilty one's own lawyer, to exonerate a guilty person. (I'm not sure that it's not, either.)
I have thought that, perhaps, the defending lawyer should try just as hard to get at the truth as the prosecutor, but still be an advocate for the defandant. This is possible, you know.
The biggest trouble with this idea, as far as I can see, is that we would have to get a whole lot more honest to have this work at all.
Exam 4/C again. Maybe I'll do better this time.
If I ran a firm that specialized in aggressive defense of property rights as construed to protect titled owners rather than (for instance) squatters, would I want to keep an avowed communist, or pro-squatter of any kind, on the payroll? Probably not.
What if that communist squatter (hey, pile it on!) was in fact the best person in the firm at pursuing the cases we undertook, and managed to set aside his personal beliefs / leanings / preferences in order to zealously prosecute his job? The probably not might become only a "maybe." (And I'd suggest this person get counseling, or some ulcer medication.) I might choose to have a "less effective" total team of staffers (in one dimension) if it meant that people agreed on basic principles of what they did (meaning perhaps a more effective total team in another sense).
Point is, that's something that should be left to the discretion of the one doing the hiring, WHEN THE CONTEXT IS PRIVATE.
When it's public, that's a far different thing. I'd be pretty bristly if the government required everyone with a government job to take a specific, narrow political view.
timothy
jrnl: http://tinyurl.com/c2l8yr / foes: http://tinyurl.com/ckjno5
Imagine that two lawyers both write the exact same argument...
How about a hypothetical situation that's actually possible?
Lawyers are not hired on the basis of their beliefs, they're hired because they will argue whatever you pay them to argue.
But you don't know what they'll write until you've hired them so it's pretty dumb to hire someone who disagrees with you.
This is silly. This is like expecting Herr Comrade Bushie to employee Democrats, or non-Christians, or non-whites, or non-males, or anyone with an IQ over 91 -- obviously that would be destabilizing. We cannot expect or want the Party (led gloriously by our divine Herr Comrade Bushie) to employee any subversives with the wrong religion, skin color, gender, or lacking Party affiliation, or having an education.
"I always thought it was a sad commentary on the quality of GM's cars that a guy who makes a living selling them won't drive them."
It's a sad commentary on the quality of your logic, if you think that him driving a Lexus means GM cars are no good.
One other thing:
Altering the words or application of the Constitution itself, as the Congress or Supreme court would try, doesn't NOT alter your human rights to free speech and assembly.
The Constitution, the government, or Mr. Unitary Exectutive Supreme WarMaster Bush, cannot take away your rights. They can write down that they don't think you should have them, but they would, wouldn't they.
Your rights are not granted to you by them. You, and every person alive on this planet were born with those rights, and no one can claim they don't exist. They can deny you your rights, but they can't take them away.
The framers of the Constitution, esp. Jefferson, believed that human rights were "natural". Some said granted by Providence, but that's not really important. The idea is that they exist because we believe that they do. Call it religious. Call it the ultimate ethical stand. But they exist because we say they do, because we demand that they do. WE THE PEOPLE.
Jefferson was codifying something that exists with or without the Bill of Rights. He didn't create the rights, he merely put them on paper. That was his Original Intention, kids. With the immortal 9th reminding us that just because he forgot to write one in, he didn't intend to say that it didn't exist. Privacy, no doubt, would be covered under the 9th.
Some asshat at a law firm doesn't get to nullify your human rights. Neither does Alito. No "business", which is a fake front for a bunch of men anyway, gets to deny them. Businesses are just legal structures granted by the people. They don't govern, and they don't get to pick and choose which natural rights apply to people they deign to hire.
They exist at our sufferance. We are not supplicants begging for the right to eat at their feet. They should beg us for mercy. We've forgotten who's in charge here.
Long answer is: Yes
Short answer is: No
In reality your a lawyer and are paid to have the options of who pays you (The Client). The right to have an opinion is left to the intellectuals. You do not have opinions yourself.
Just like a politician - they have the opinion of who ever pays them the most.
I guess that is why Lawyers easy become politicians.
My Sig indicates the end of the comment I posted.
The question for you is, why aren't you outraged? Don't you care that you have give up your first amendment right to free speech because your bosses want dissent silenced in all venues that they can possibly affect?
(Damn, Shihar said most everything I was going to...)
You have the right to say whatever the hell you want. However if your employer decides they don't like it they have the right to let you go peacibly. There is nothing wrong with that. You didn't give up your first amendment rights - you exercised them. Now you have to grin and bear the responsibilities for exercising them. The constitution isn't a free ride to do whatever the hell you want without repricussion. Re-read the first amendment:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Note it says nothing about protecting you from an employer. And I'm sure the employer in question is an "at-will" employer.
Alito and Bush are members of the Government. A law firm is a corporation. Different rules apply.
You may not like it, but that's the way it is.
Doesn't the field become richer when the wider spectrum of legal thought is explored and encouraged?
Not in America it doesn't.
please let us know.
I think the other detail absent from anyone's analysis is that this woman almost certainly knew how to do exactly squat for that firm. 'I wanted to learn about the scope of copyright protection'? Crazily naive. What about filling out forms and making copies is going to teach her that?
I'm well-educated and smart, and I've been an IP legal assistant for 10 years. Even if she started on her 18th birthday, she hasn't done this long enough to have the faintest clue. Certainly not in the context of working in a law firm, where they want you to do task X billable to their client rather than read cases and reference materials all day.
Honestly, that firm firing her probably took as much consideration as firing the guy that sweeps the floor after the office closes. I bet they think they can find someone else in NYC that sweeps floors, don't you?
Imagine that two lawyers both write the exact same argument- say, in favor of capital punishment- and both do a solid job. However, one believes passionately in the argument, and the other one doesn't. Who's the better lawyer? Obviously the one who didn't believe what they were writing. - your conclusion is wrong. As you stated BOTH lawyers did a solid job. From this you cannot assert that one lawyer is better than the other lawyer because one lawyer believes in the idea that his argument is supporting.
For all we know they are equally skilled lawyers. It is also possible that any one of these lawyers is more skilled than the other one. Logically you did not make a sound argument.
You can't handle the truth.
Of course, the actual lesson to be learned from this case would be that lawyers should be legally barred from participation in any way in what the legislative branch does, as they're not interested in jurisprudece per se, only in how to corrupt the legal code in such a way as to make as much money as possible from it. And, as we as a society pay the final economic bills of a defective legal code, it's far past time to kick them out.
But it's not like that's really news.
While you may be right, that shouldn't be the way it is. If you publish an article saying you use crack, or telling people to use crack, or that you personally would refuse to prosecute someone for using crack, then you should be fired; if you just suggest that legalizing crack would be a good idea, you should not. (You might get fired for being a moron if your argument is a bad one, but that's something different.) As the name suggests, the Drug Enforcement Agency is in the business of enforce drug laws, not of determining what they should be.
The same applies in Ms. Chernyak's case. If she had just said that she thinks the laws about DRM needed to be changed, she should not have been fired. But instead she endorsed breaking the law. It's almost never a good idea for a lawyer to break the law, and this is especially true for one who wants to keep their job at a firm that specifically deals with enforcing those same laws!
"Doesn't the field become richer when the wider spectrum of legal thought is explored and encouraged?"
Yes, but it doesn't make you more money. The idea is to share the views of those who can line your pockets with large wads of cash.
Students. Heh. He'll learn eventually...
"A good lawyer is capable of arguing that up is actually down, a black cat is really white, and that you really didn't stab your wife and her lover thirty-seven times even though he/she knows you're guilty as sin."
Those are the kind of lawyers that make everyone hate lawyers. If you KNOW your client is guilty of murder, all you should be able to do is to get the fairest treatment provided for by the law. Getting them off, in my book, means being an accessory after the fact. Lawyer or not.
This is how our justice system has always been. "Go wrong" implies some sort of change.
Take your story to the next level. 2 lawyers the same yada yada, and one of them has an employee talking to the press taking a view opposite what you are paying them to argue.
i'm not saying it's right, but i can see why that might irk said pocket book. that firm was paid to argue the belief regardless of how it felt. releasing information to the press that is the opposite of what i'm paying you to argue makes pocket book look silly.
i doubt she got fired for holding the view, otherwise they would have asked her in the interview for her position. i suspect they feel exactly the same way you do, that her personal opinion shouldn't really matter. she probably got fired because it's bad form to take someone's money to argue one thing and then say the opposite to the press.
if she'd refrained from either releasing the article or attaching her name to it, she could have continued holding her opinions on whatever she wanted and continued working with this company.
the law firm was being the good lawyer here. she was the one bringing her personal beliefs into it. you can't have your cake and eat it too...
Eh. I'd rather someone who could do his job without what he believes interfering with it at all.
Far better to have a professional doing a professional job, than have a zealot who may get erratic if he views his beliefs to be under attack. Emotion is the enemy of prescision.
ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
It's not until a person hits age 40 or 50 that they start realizing that having large diversity of opinion promotes nothing but disagreement.
Sometimes you mull over a vague idea until someone, coincidentally, phrases it perfectly.
Upon hitting 38, I've become weary of ongoing political debates precisely because they never end. This has been rolling around in my head for a couple months; somehow (perhaps by mentioning the age it sets in) you've summarized it perfectly.
At the age range mentioned, one has (generlaly) heard it all before; further discussion won't add to nor dislodge chosen views. Time for HL Mencken's quote on flag-raising.
Can we get a "-1 Wrong" moderation option?
Far better to have a professional doing a professional job, than have a zealot who may get erratic if he views his beliefs to be under attack. Emotion is the enemy of prescision.
But would you want someone who is not neutral but supports the other side's position?
Is buying a Harley Davidson as your first motorcycle since you were 16 at age 49 a midlife crisis issue?
"Doesn't the field become richer when the wider spectrum of legal thought is explored and encouraged?" Of course not ! Now, bend over and spread em'
And there go my nipples again....
-- I'm not a pessimist, I'm a realist. It's not my fault that life sucks so much. --
what the fuck is this moderated to -1 for?
"Doesn't the field become richer when the wider spectrum of legal thought is explored and encouraged?"
Not if they are conservatives. If the socio-political views of the firm are conservative in nature, then the answer to that question is always going to be 'No!'.
Sorry, but I've seen it one too many times in this thread. It's *toe* the line, not *tow*.
"Doesn't the field become richer when the wider spectrum of legal thought is explored and encouraged?""
Enriching the field of legal thought often does little to enrich the senior partners at law firms.
Yup, makes sense. One of my sisters was a lawyer and her proudest moment was when she covinced a roomful of lawyers that she was right about a point, when she KNEW she was wrong!
From the article: "If I bought a CD that had DRM"--the software that blocks duplication--"I would obviate it," Chernyak says, carefully. "If there are laws I believe are wrong, I will break them."
:)
This is like a doctor saying "if I don't like the patient, I'll let him die". Of course he *can* do that, but it would be better not to declare it in public.
Exactly. If he had gone to work for a doggie spa, then expressed opinions that pampering pooches was a tremendous waste of time and money, would we be upset that the owner fired him?
The person expressed an opinion that he didn't believe in what the company was doing, it would give a wise founder pause that said person would be working at his best, instead subconciously (or worse) undermining his own arguements and the goals of the firm. I can't believe this rated a story at all, much less front page.
You are in a maze of twisted little posts, all alike.
so you're implicitly saying you'll fire the lawyer who does not believe in what you hired him to do.
did you forget to take your meds?
After all she publicly said: "if there are laws I believe are wrong, I will break them".
;)
Now if she said she disagreed with the law, and wished to change it using proper or reasonable processes[1], that's a whole different thing.
I'm sure there are many laws lawyers disagree with, but to go about _publicly_[2] talking about breaking laws especially laws in the field your law firm specializes in, is:
a) Stupid
b) Lacking in discretion and good judgement
c) Unprofessional
I bet discretion is quite important to law firms.
Given the way she has handled the situation and her statements I don't see why any reputable law firm should hire her.
Sure looks like she is better off working in some other line. Perhaps she should focus on working work for activist organisations.
[1] Sure, breaking the laws is one of the potential options for changing laws, but hey leave that in fine print or something. Don't understand "fine print"? You're fired.
[2] Privately behind closed doors with full confidentiality is obviously another matter...
And you don't know who wrote the more persuasive brief until the judge rules, so if you wind up with someone who not only doesn't agree with your position, but who vehemently disagrees, you cut them loose.
Si vis pacem, para bellum
The only thing more annoying than a Libertarian is an (un|mis)informed Libertarian
This is a bit like a pro-union attorney going to work for a firm specializing in labor law, whose clients are all business management. Or a victims' rights advocate going to work in the public defender's office. The role of an attorney is not exploring legal philosophies from all viewpoints, but to advocate on behalf of his client. If you don't agree with the position that you've been hired to represent, then you probably aren't going to do a good job of it.
http://alternatives.rzero.com/
Doesn't the field become richer when the wider spectrum of legal thought is explored and encouraged?
Yes, the field becomes richer. But that is not the objective. The objective is for the lawyer to become richer. The lawyer becomes richer if there are more, more complex, and more restrictive laws. Simple laws that make sense would lead to less court time.
Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance
It always surprises (and disappoints me) how, on many forum discussions like this, many Americans come down on the side of the authorithy (employer, government, etc.) with arguments like "if you don't like it, go elsewhere". Even when said authorithy clearly violated fair rules.
Who wants a defense attorney who believes you're guilty?
-Eric
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
"I have thought that, perhaps, the defending lawyer should try just as hard to get at the truth as the prosecutor, but still be an advocate for the [sic]defandant."
It seems that either you didn't understand what I said here, or you don't believe it's possible. From your post I can't which, if either, happened.
Exam 4/C again. Maybe I'll do better this time.
"This is not possible for a defense attorney. They are hired to get people off, bottom line."
I didn't even think of suggesting that defense attorneys are hired to do anything other than get people off.
My comment wasn't about what people are hired to do, but what people perhaps should be expected to do.
Just because people are routinely hired to do something doesn't mean that it's right, or that we should be complacent about it.
Exam 4/C again. Maybe I'll do better this time.
Except in this case 1) this isn't simply for political beliefs unrelated to the job, and 2) holding and *exercising* those beliefs makes the employee unable to effectively perform the job that is completely antithetical to their beliefs.
This is one step away from firing any policemen who are members of the democratic party.
No, it's one step away from firing Republican campaign workers who are members of the Democratic party. See how stupid that would be? Same thing here.
It is unethical
To fire someone whose actions and opinions are completely antithetical to your business and embarassing in front of clients? Think not.
incompatible with democracy
In what sense, that you should be able to say and do whatever you want and your employer has to take it? That's not democracy, that's insanity.
and illegal
Hell it is. What law?
What's the difference any more?
--- Grow a pair, liberals... stop letting the Republicans bully you!
If you don't believe in DRM but can argue effectively for it, you're an asset to your company.
If you can argue for anything just because someone is paying you, you're a morally bankrupt intellectual whore.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
I don't really think anyone "deserves to get fired" over expressing their personal beliefs on a topic. I actually know at least 2 people who DO work for defense-related govt. agencies who are decidedly "anti-war" in their personal beliefs. So what? That hardly means they're not capable of doing the mapping or engineering tasks they're paid to do. What's the line of thinking here? People holding a different set of beliefs are too much of a "security risk" because they'll sabatoge things on the inside?? What a crock! Deal with such issues as you come to them. Don't judge your employees in advance like that.
Lawyers are not "hired to protect IP" in an overall sense, anyway. At most, they're hired to protect individual pieces of IP in specific circumstances. Perhaps someone with a good working knowledge of how IP protection schemes are broken is exactly the one you want in your corner in an IP protection suit?
Sorry - but this whole thing hits rather close to home for me. I was just turned down for a job at an area college, after 2 interviews and being verbally told I got the job, just because someone read my personal web site and didn't like a couple things I said. Unfortunately, these things happen in "at will hiring" states like mine and there's little legal recourse. But it doesn't make it any more "right".
The proportion of comments here criticising this woman is a disgrace. Yes, the most cynical analyses of how law firms are self-serving may apply. If so, why are slashdotters so keen to defend this behaviour?
Copyright and patent law are complicated systems with (many would argue) important social functions that need to be finely balanced. A competent IP firm should be representing both plaintiffs and defendants in these systems. Furthermore, it is not clear that DRM is good, even for an IP firm's copyright holding clients, or for the copyright system as a whole. Employees who think critically about these matters are to be commended.
Perhaps an argument can be made that IP law firms benefit from having the worst and most tangled laws possible, and that regardless of the implications for cultural industries or for good policy, the firm should be encouraging chaos and DRM. It's not good to see slashdotters being so keen on this kind of free commerce.
Fixing copyright
[The DRM company and boss who fired a worker for expressing an anti-DRM view outside of work] have certain realities that they are faced with each day from all sides. His boss knows what the DRM "realities " are. He is faced with and is working with these each day. If he fails or loses focus, he will be out of a job or lose respect.
A boss or company (and its directors and/or owners) who fires someone for that deserves no respect. They are abusive scum. (I suppose calling a DRM company "abusive scum" is redundant, but that's a grammar issue.) They should be identified by name and photo, so that those unlucky enough to be inflicted with their presence in daily life will be warned, so those who choose can refuse to do business with them or extend them any courtesies.
I'd like to think those people who like to talk about "individual responsibility" would agree that the individuals responsible for the firing should be held individually responsible. But I'm not that naive.
Laws governing non-compete clauses vary from state to state. In California, non-compete clauses are not lawful. In Walia v. Aetna a California employee won one million dollars in punitive damages when she was fired for refusing to sign an illegal non-complete agreement, even though the agreement was unenforceable anyway. That award was upheld on appeal. You can't be prevented from pursuing your livelihood in California. Most states give non-compete agreements slightly more weight, but not much as a rule. Employment lawyers keep writing more and more elaborate non-compete agreements while courts continue to decrease their enforceability. Makes you wonder when the lawyers will get a clue.
However, language that narrowly restricts a former employee's ability to steal employees or clients, use confidential information, and so forth, is generally acceptable.
A good lawyer is capable of arguing that up is actually down, a black cat is really white, and that you really didn't stab your wife and her lover thirty-seven times even though he/she knows you're guilty as sin.
It is against the law to represent a client as not guilty when you know otherwise. One of the biggest problems in the legal system isn't lawyers, but interference from people who think they know a lot, but actually don't know crap.
Private companies are based on the founders concepts of right and wrong, good and evil. If yours dont match theirs, its time to find another job anyway.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
your example is invalid, this would be like your friends expressing publicly that the defense departments mapping and engineering is wrong. Let them try writing that up on a public forum and see if they are not come down on like a ton of bricks.
He is an IP lawyer where there company defends DRM, what does that say to there customers when publicly the people that they want to hire will say they are wrong. If I wanted DRM lawyers having someone like that on staff would definitely be enough for me to look for another company that believes in what I am doing. (PS, I hate DRM, but your analogy is just wrong).
"Doesn't the field become richer when the wider spectrum of legal thought is explored and encouraged?"
Intellectually and ethically, or financially?
Flying is easy, just throw yourself at the ground and miss. -Douglas Adams
Actually, there are -plenty- of police officers (though I don't know specifically about DEA agents) who do indeed advocate the end to Prohibition II, or changes to other laws. The DEA, I might remind you, -is- a federal organization-we can debate about whether corporations, with their charters, in effect are (though my answer would be "Absolutely, and they're subject to the same restrictions, else the gov't should be writing them into the charter"), but if a DEA officer wrote an article which simply said "Law X should be repealed", while continuing doing his job of enforcing it while it -does- exist, they'd be in very, very hot water if they booted him out.
To fight the war on terror, stop being afraid.
Exactly. If he had gone to work for a doggie spa, then expressed opinions that pampering pooches was a tremendous waste of time and money, would we be upset that the owner fired him?
Absolutely, as long as his (actually her - read the article) job in the doggie spa was rank and file and the expression of opinion happened at off-work time and without claiming to be the official spokesperson for the company. Is everyone writting proprietary software for living now going to be fired for praising open source on slashdot? Are teachers going to be sacked for private, out-of-classroom belief in creationism or whatever?
A lawyer is first and foremost an Officer of the Court
His 2nd job is to be an advocate for his client.
Example: A defense attorney learns that his client or witness plans to lie on the stand. First, the attorney should first try to convince them not to commit perjury. If that fails, the attorney is required by law to notify the judge and if necessary, stop representing their client.
A lawyer's first obligation is to the justice system. Clients are second.
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
The expression of the opinion was in a newspaper, a very public forum. I don't care if they claimed they weren't an official spokesperson or not, they made a very public statement. She knew she was speaking to a reporter, and she knew she was simultaneously founding an anti-copyright organization, Free Culture NYU. Which sounds like a hell of a conflict of interest to me.
In this particular case, she also made the comment "If there are laws I believe are wrong, I will break them." I'm sure this goes over well in a LAW firm that has serious concerns like attourney-client privledge. "Yeah, the search was totally illegal, but the bastard was guilty, so I told the cops where to find DNA evidence because I believe the guilty should be punished"
To get fired for your beliefs or for expressing your beliefs infringes the right to freedom of speech which takes legal precedence of any contractural laws (so dependant upon the truth of the circumstance, the firm should be subject to criminal and civil preceedings).
If you believe in being a medieval serf, than your lord and master's opinions take precendence over yours and takes precendece of all those people around you, include family and friends (in fact your lord and master's opinions should be yours, you ungratefull servant). Speak you opinion and defend your right to do so and don't forget to defend the rights of others to do the same.
Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
From the article: "If I bought a CD that had DRM" -- the software that blocks duplication -- "I would obviate it," Chernyak says, carefully. "If there are laws I believe are wrong, I will break them." Yes, that's incompatible with any law firm's work.
Just like every other western civilisation employee
The expression of the opinion was in a newspaper, a very public forum. I don't care if they claimed they weren't an official spokesperson or not, they made a very public statement.
Are you implying that anyone with a job can not talk to a newspaper about a controversial personal opinion? Some free country! Read the article, it never mentions her ex-employer (and hey, she is seriously cute!).
In this particular case, she also made the comment "If there are laws I believe are wrong, I will break them." I'm sure this goes over well in a LAW firm that has serious concerns like attourney-client privledge.
She it talking about holding down Shift key while inserting a music CD. Sure you want to do a business with a lawyer who installs root kits on his PC?
Man, you really read a lot into so few lines. Are you arguing with me, or the cop who pulled you over for speeding? Remind me to tell you sometime about the time I spent twenty minutes reading some cop the riot act for pulling me over for not riding my bicycle in the gutter, while his partner watched and tried not to laugh at the both of us.
Emotion is the enemy of prescision.
Whoa, don't get so fired up about this.
On a serious note, does that really apply to performing arts? And is not public speaking such an art? Not all lawyers get to do the same amount of public speaking, but, IMO, the one who does it a lot will greatly benefit her client by being passionate about the case.
"Doesn't the field become richer when the wider spectrum of legal thought is explored and encouraged?
sorry to inform you Inga, but the usa has a long history of only sticking with one view. there are different fields in the spectrum that you talk about. quite simply it is the legal thought of the richer field that is most often explored and encouraged. but as a student of law i imagine you already know this.
however i applaude your outspoken honesty, and suggest you contact a labour lawyer to determine your rights in this case...protected political free speech, wrongful dismissal, libel and slander may be present. don't be vindictive, but do be assertive if your former employer is guilty of any of these activities.
but most importantly keep up the good honest work, it is people like you that may someday give lawyers a good reputation again with the general public.
it's about the views which you sell to the client.
Doesn't the field become richer when the wider spectrum of legal thought is explored and encouraged?
I have worked as a technical consultant for IT related matters and IT forensics for a major technology centric law firm for about 6 years. The view you advertise to the public and sell to the client is what matters. You can't sell commitment to the client if they think you don't adhere to the appropriate views.
They'd only be interested in opposing views if they were kept close to key members of the firm (and NOT the client) for the use of a devils advocate. Go outside that private group and you embarrass the group, the firm and the client. That is bad business (and I hate it). It does not work well for their media spin doctors and it will often be brought up in court against your side. They actually have classes on how to deal with the media!
Most lawyers will assume the view of the client with the deepest pockets if they're the best at what they do, or otherwise assume the view of what they can get if not.
But then, most lawyers are scum. I hate this industry. It is NOT about justice, it is about who can buy the best experts and legal team. Although the justice systems are designed to uphold justice, justice gets massaged into something quite perverted by those who are good at it, for those who can afford it.
I have seen many comments here about lawyers being paid to argue any point as required by the client.
That IS the current state of affairs these days, but it is NOT a lawyer's duty.
Lawyers are considered officers of the court. They are charged with assisting in a court's proper functioning. The entire court system is designed with the idea that lawyers will perform that duty most of the time. It is a lawyer's job to try to settle a dispute amicably OUTSIDE of a trial first. If a lawyer's client is clearly in the wrong, it is his duty to advocate for a just settlement (Rather than the pound of flesh the plaintiff wants), NOT argue that black is white and up is down. When the client is in the wrong, a GOOD lawyer considers it a win if the plaintif's award is proportional to the wrong. Trials are only supposed to happen to address genuine disagreements on what is fair, and in some cases, genuine disagreements as to what happened and who is in the wrong. Sometimes it may even be properly used to argue that the law itself is wrong. Court should never be used to get away with something.
Court procedures can only work properly if most lawyers do this most of the time. Part of the reason our court system has bogged down so badly is lawyers' near wholesale abandonment of their duties as officers of the court in favor of the mercenary approach. Please note, not ALL lawyers have gone this way, but way too many have.
Historical note for the U.S. At one time (a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away), in the exceedingly unlikely case that you were to appear in court, your 'lawyer' was NOT a professional, he was just 'the smartest man you know'. Indeed, it was common enough that nobody you knew (for that matter, nobody THEY knew) had EVER appeared in court for any reason.
Since that time, the number of courts and the number of reasons you might appear in one have multiplied to the point that MOST people will eventually appear in court for some reason (even if it's just for a traffic ticket). Meanwhile, professional lawyers have proliferated until the U.S. has the most lawyers per capita in the world. Other than small claims (where having a lawyer represent you is forbidden) and traffic court (where self representation is common), being represented by a non-professional lawyer is so uncommon that the desire to do so will in itself call for a hearing and the judge might try to block it. The latter is, in part, because he/she knows that the professional on the other side will take every unfair advantage of the situation, and in part because the court is way overbooked and can't afford the slowdown.
Of course it does... but we don't want it in our backyard.
Yeah, but the customer might still prefer to use the firm that publicly seems to believe in its case.
sudo ergo sum
Do you really think Hollywood is going to "thrive" and continue to spend millions of dollars on movies when the movies can be downloaded freely over the internet?
Yes, I do. They make money now when people can see them for free on TV. They make money when people can rent them for much less than the price of a movie ticket. They make money on them when one person can legally buy a DVD and share it with all their friends for free. Just because they hate change does not mean that they will fail to thrive if they are forced to adapt. They won't "thrive" if they fail to change their business model, but they have done a good job of changing their business model in response to changes in the past. They just find it easier to buy congressmen than change the business model, so why should they bother to adapt when they can force the law to adapt to them?
Learn to love Alaska
but the law firm becomes poorer. No surprise here. If I publicly say "I like my job, but what my employer does is immoral" I'll get fired too.
thegodmovie.com - watch it
Of course not. But if that position is incompatible with the way she earns her money, I do suggest its foolish. It does suggest that she is unethical (I believe A but will do work for anti-A if it makes me $$$).
Likewise, I believe her employer is free to employ whomever they want, is it your position that the employer should be forced to employ her against their will? She it talking about holding down Shift key while inserting a music CD.
No, she's expressing a belief system; "I do what what I want, even when its against the rules" to paraphrase.
Sure you want to do a business with a lawyer who installs root kits on his PC?
The one has absolutely nothing to do with the other. I want to work with a lawyer who actually has ethics and sticks to them. If he's breaking copyright law, how can I trust him not to be doubling billing me?
It does suggest that she is unethical (I believe A but will do work for anti-A if it makes me $$$).
And you expect lawyers to do anything else??
The RIAA may want you to think it's illegal to hold down the Shift key, but it's never been decided in a court of law.
If pressing Shift is illegal, is it illegal to disable autorun in the Registry? Is it illegal to insert the CD in a computer that doesn't run Windows?
Even SunComm wisely decided not to sue Halderman who publicized the workaround.
"And I guess that you are too fucking retarded to realize that during war time when you talk about war 99% of the people will automatically ,for some strange reason think you are talking about the current war."
So, you're blaming me for your inability to read for comprehension. Blame your mom for laying down with that half-wit you call a father. Intelligence is largely hereditary.
It's funny though how you blame ME because YOU made a mistake.
Sad really that you're incapable of actually UNDERSTANDING a post before you decide to open your idiot mouth in response to it.
Maybe ASK FOR CLARIFICATION next time before you assume things. Because you know what they say about assuming...
It makes you an imbecile. Oh, wait, that's just what you are, that has nothing to do with assuming...
How pathetic are you that you follow me from topic to topic and waste all your mod points at once modding me down?