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?"
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'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
Non-competes are also non-enforcable. Once you stop working for a firm, you are no longer subject to any of their rules. If they want to give you "gardening leave" (ie. pay you for 18 months but have you not come into work) so that you remain officially employed and subject to the contract, that's something else entirely.
It doesn't mean much now, it's built for the future.
That's true. I would support the idea of a law protecting workers rights to engage in any legal activity outside of work on the workers own time.
Avoid Missing Ball for High Score
Actually, their motication is neither. Attorneys have a duty solely to their clients. An employee or member of a law firm must not publicly advocate or advance positions against the interests of their clients. Had the firm continued to employ this person without any sort of reprimand, they would would not be zealously representing the clients.
I have my doubts whether this person could now be admitted to the NY Bar.
She said "If there are laws I believe are wrong, I will break them."
;-)
Funny, the founding fathers held the same view. Fire the lot of 'em! (Oh, wait, the Patriot Act pretty much did)
She works for a law firm.
Worked, past tense. Thus this story.
A law firm can't employ someone who is publicly advocating breaking the law.
Yes, they can. Some law firms even specialize in such matters. You could even take the stance that THIS law firm publically advocates breaking the law, since at least in my state (and most have similar laws), selling a "broken" CD as a functional product violates the "warrant of merchantability". Look that phrase up - You can use it in a LOT of situations where retailers try to refuse to let you return goods that do not function in their intended capacity.
Also, having a dissenting opinion does not mean someone will fail to do their job, much less deliberately sabotage the work. At the very least, this would have given the law firm a sort of built-in "Devil's Advocate", and it never hurts to know how the "enemy" thinks (and on the flip side of that, surrounding oneself with "yes men" unfailingly leads to a delusional world-view).
A law firm shouldn't employ someone who, for all intents and purposes, wrote "I hate our clients." in a public forum.
So, newcomer to Slashdot and IT in general, eh?
If there are laws I believe are wrong, I will break them.
That's the problem right there. Surely this lawyer knows violating copyright laws is a misdemeanor... in other words, criminal activity. And then she told a reporter, on the record, that she feels justified breaking laws she doesn't like.
It would have been surprising if she lost a job for publishing a law review article on the dangers of DRM. Lawyers are professional advocates, and trained to see more than one side of an issue--that's what makes them effective. No IP boutique that wants to stay in business would get rid of someone for their scholarly or professional views, so long as they maintain their ability to be zealous advocates for their clients.
This lawyer didn't do that, however. Instead, she did something that undermines her credibility and authority, damaging her ability to perform as an advocate for her IP-owning clients, or any other client, for that matter.
Attorneys lose the opportunity to do certain things which are incompatible with being an officer of the court. One of the things that's not compatible with your duty as an officer of the court is law breaking. Nor should an attorney advocate that others break the law. Yet that's exactly what she did. Attorneys who do these things have very little credibility.
It's not surprising she lost a job. What's surprising is that anti-DRM people blame the law firm and the "greedy lawyers," who fired her, rather than point the finger at the person responsible for those statements.
News Flash: Godzilla hates infrastructure.
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.
Key part of that is "fair trial".
Let me give you an example that happened in my state. A politically connected person was arrested for drunk driving, and essentially, the case was easily made. A blood test was done, at a hospital, by a nurse, some time after the accident, and still showed the man was above the legal limit. Between the accident and the test, there was no opportunity for the man to drink anything.
The man, however, was not found guilty of drunk driving. During preperation, the nurse used an alcohol swab on the skin prior to taking the blood. Now, numerous studies have found that does not, and cannot, contaminate the test. A local newspaper tested that, even using Everclear as a prep, and found the same result. The law, however, clearly required that the skin be prepared with a non-alcohol swab prior to the blood being drawn. This law has been on the books for quite some time (at least 10 years).
So who's correct here? The man was pretty clearly drunk, but the law on blood tests was not followed.
-- Ravensfire
"But we decide which is right, and which is an illusion"