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.
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!
"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.
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."
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.
I'm president of the local chapter of NORML. I was fired from my job as a DEA agent...
I know you're trying to be funny, and you're making this up. The sad thing is people like you believe this sort of thing is OK and legal. If you are fired from a government job for your political beliefs off the job, and not because you are failing to do the job, then a serious injustice has been done. This is one step away from firing any policemen who are members of the democratic party. It is unethical, incompatible with democracy, and illegal.
So, if its 'good for your career' its ok to be a robot?
I don't care whether it is good for my career or not, being a robot would be totally awesome.
Avoid Missing Ball for High Score
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.
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.
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"