Fired from an IP Law Firm for Anti-DRM Views? 323
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?"
Poor Job Fit? (Score:5, Insightful)
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!"
Re:Poor Job Fit? YES! (Score:5, Insightful)
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
Re:Poor Job Fit? YES! (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Poor Job Fit? YES! (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Poor Job Fit? YES! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Poor Job Fit? YES! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Poor Job Fit? YES! (Score:2)
Re:Poor Job Fit? YES! (Score:2)
I'm not convinced (Score:3, Insightful)
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, perh
Re:I'm not convinced (Score:2, Redundant)
Agreed. I think the lawyer's job is not to argue to get "bad guys" off the hook (and perhaps it isn't; I don't see lawyers outside of TV or movies), but to ensure a fair trial.
Re:I'm not convinced (Score:5, Interesting)
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
Re:I'm not convinced (Score:3, Insightful)
It's annoying but I don't see how someone can be convicted if the process under which their guilt is proven breaks the law. It's like extracting confessions by beating someone, same principle although I'm sure that the nurse's error was not intentional.
Re:I'm not convinced (Score:3, Insightful)
And the way we ensure a fair trial is by both parties' lawyers trying to win.
Re:I'm not convinced (Score:2)
This means that the lawyer defending someone should not (and really can not) absolutely believe their client is guilty until the end of the trial. Even then, given some circumstances and occurrences in the trial, they may n
Re:Poor Job Fit? YES! (Score:2)
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.
Re:Poor Job Fit? YES! (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:Poor Job Fit? (Score:2)
You're just learning this now? Do you have a phone book handy? There are many in your metropolitan area of choice, wherever that may be, and there have been for over a century.
Re:Poor Job Fit? (Score:2)
I'd like to clarify that when I said "if there are laws I believe are wrong, I will break them," I was not making a general statement. FC does not endorse reckless lawbreaking; nor do I.
Well, how the heck was your law firm supposed to know that? You wrote, "if there are laws I believe are wrong, I will break them" in an IP context while working for an IP firm working for large corporations. What if you worked for a firm that represented Planned Parenthood and wrote that "abortion is ungodly and law
What did she expect? (Score:5, Funny)
-Another asshat
About the same thing.
Re:What did she expect? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:What did she expect? (Score:3, Funny)
Not to be captain obvious here, but have you noticed what site you posted this on?
-nB
Re:What did she expect? (Score:2)
Hey, I work for the DEA, but in my spare time I an editor for High Times
If I was fired from a government job because of my hobby, which includes political activism to change certain laws, then I have every right to complain and probably very good grounds for a lawsuit (seeing as it was a government job). Political activism is the most highly protected from of free speech, for good reason.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:What did she expect? (Score:2)
At this, the lawyer stands and speaks. "He... uh... needed killin'?"
"You're free to go. Case dismissed."
Different types of "richer." (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem, I think, is that you and your firm hold different meanings for the term "richer," you meaning intellectually while they think fiscally.
Re:Different types of "richer." (Score:3, Insightful)
Richer? (Score:2)
It sounds like someone has learned a life lesson about what kind of "richer" the legal profession is preoccupied with.
What's the relevance? (Score:5, Interesting)
shocked I tells ya (Score:4, Funny)
(society as a hole, on the other hand...)
Re:shocked I tells ya (Score:2)
Best. Typo. Ever.
Soko
Re:shocked I tells ya (Score:2)
The joke just flew over one of our heads
*splat*
and hit the other in the face.
Re:shocked I tells ya (Score:3, Interesting)
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 zealou
Re:shocked I tells ya (Score:2)
Since when? Precisely which rule of professional conduct would apply here? If it is as you say, how do you explain Rule 6.4?
Just because a lawyer publicly disagrees with one of his clients doesn't mean that he cannot provide competent representation or that there is a significant risk that the representation will be materially limited as a
Re:shocked I tells ya (Score:2)
Translation (Score:3, Funny)
Overlawyered (Score:3, Interesting)
Amazing facts (Score:2)
2. The Village Voice wasting any resources on printing/posting this information.
Is the author of the article 12?
Re:Amazing facts (Score:3, Insightful)
Read "What's the Matter with Kansas?". 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?
Free speech is anulled if the cost is starvation. It think it was Adams or Hancock who mentione
Free Speech != Free from Responsibility (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Free Speech != Free from Responsibility (Score:3, Insightful)
This is NOT the case.
When a business holds your income in the balance, especially in an industry which requires heavy references and experience for employment which are tainted by instances of termination, they wield power equal to, though different from, government.
It's time to see corporations held to the same standards as government when they wield the same power, this includes obiding by the c
Re:Amazing facts (Score:2)
One other thing (Score:3, Insightful)
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, an
Get it right... (Score:2)
You may not like it, but that's the way it is.
Responsibility for your Actions (Score:3, Interesting)
(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 exe
Re:Amazing facts (Score:2)
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.
Seems to me that the prohibition on the abridgement of free speech falls on Congress, and the First Amendment does not apply here. You are either in need of reviewing the actual text of the F
From the original article... (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re:From the original article... (Score:2)
Agreed. Imagine yourself the client of a law firm. Would you trust one of their employees who is opposed to the purpose you are hiring them for? How can you trust that the firm/employees will not work against your case when they should be working for it? That can directly affect
Re: (Score:2)
Re:From the original article... (Score:2)
Professionals also don't give interviews to the media in which they identify their profession and publicly state an opinion contrary to their employer's business model. If this had been a private comment made to friends or even other co-workers, that would be one thing. But talking to a reporter? In what way is that "private"?
if there are laws I believe are wrong.... (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:if there are laws I believe are wrong.... (Score:2)
And when she lists this job on her application to take the bar, she might just get rejected outright for advocating criminal behavior.
Re:From the original article... (Score:2, Interesting)
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 m
It's a reasonably dismissal (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:It's a reasonably dismissal (Score:2)
Been there, done that... (Score:2)
Anyone know where I can publish an article on this grave injustice?
Re:Been there, done that... (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Been there, done that... (Score:2)
This guy's case is different, as he's paid to be an advocate for people and companies which are opposed to the values of an organization he leads. I don't think Microsoft would take lightly an employee moonlighting at Google. It's called conflict of interest.
This is not like the examples you give. Being a cop is not at odds with being a democrat. In general, politcal beliefs are not relevant
Re:Been there, done that... (Score:2)
This guy's case is different, as he's paid to be an advocate for people and companies which are opposed to the values of an organization he leads.
This "guy" (I thought it was a woman) is once thing. The examples other people gave of people being fired from government jobs because they supported some political action is another thing.
This is not like the examples you give. Being a cop is not at odds with being a democrat.
That was a historical example. Police officers have been fired for being democra
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Been there, done that... (Score:3, Insightful)
State laws on employment are moot for the federal government (the example here was a DEA agent - a federal employee working within the Department of Justice - who belongs to NORML).
The stated example is not quite a match for the original story, again because the DEA is part of the federal government. The fictional DEA agent may have a 1st ammendment case for that reason, while the anti-DRM lawyer probably does not (because the law firm is not part of the govern
In a Word (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Grow up to be a Lawyer for Good (Score:2, Insightful)
--b
does al qaeda (Score:3, Insightful)
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
Duh? (Score:2, Insightful)
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
Re:Duh? (Score:2)
Not if you work here [nummi.com].
I agree with the law firm. (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:I agree with the law firm. (Score:2)
Whom ever hired her in the first place should be canned for plain old not doing thier job.
Myself, I congradulate her on a well executed plan. Can't say I'm sorry to see IP lawyers squirm to get out of the light.
Soko
Re:I agree with the law firm. (Score:2)
I'm pretty sure they can if they want to. In other contexts, it might even make sense for them to do so.
Re:I agree with the law firm. (Score:3, Interesting)
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 sta
Re:I agree with the law firm. (Score:3, Insightful)
Special case. More to the point, the guys who robbed my house last year apparently believed property laws were wrong, and needed breaking. And apparently that whole driving while intoxicated thing is overblown, as witnessed by the drunk driver who killed my cousin in a head-on collision.
As such, your "founding fathers" comment simply becomes a rationalization, an attempt to elevate one's particular brand of law-breaking as being equally noble and "right".
Re:I agree with the law firm. (Score:2)
Re:I agree with the law firm. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I agree with the law firm. (Score:2)
Mr Gallagher, you are the only liberal in this year's first year law school class. And that is NOT a good thing.
-Law School Professor at Notre Dame Law about 16 years ago.
What about the right to fire? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:What about the right to fire? (Score:2)
Employee rights need to be protected (employees depend on their salary so just being fired at a moments notice is not really fair) but something like the behavior in the article wouldn't get much sympathy no matter what the laws.
Bottom Line (Score:3, Insightful)
Move along. Nothing to see here.
Re: (Score:2)
Hypocrite. (Score:2)
Hypocrite isn't the right word... (Score:2)
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
From the article... (Score:2)
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 we
Re:From the article... (Score:2)
And now, every potential employer gets to find out not only about her willingness to publicly violate the DMCA while working at a law firm concerned with such matters, but ALSO about her whining about the obvious consequences thereof and her inane excuses.
She may find employment with somebody aligned with the EFF, if they feel her beliefs make up for her lack of judgment. But other firms are really going to have to wonder.
Hence why I work for myself... (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:Hence why I work for myself... (Score:3, Interesting)
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Jobs come and go.... (Score:2)
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 hopeful
'Field' of 'Business' (Score:2)
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 dissentio
expression != endorsement (Score:2)
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.)
Some Comments (Score:2, Insightful)
Its something to be explored. (Score:2)
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 rig
They're not interested in enriching "the field" (Score:2)
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.)
No Firm Based On Law Is About Freedom (Score:2)
Law by definition is about contraints and coercion.
It has nothing whatever to do with freedom - never has, never will.
Get a clue.
so which firm was it??? (Score:2)
You should be ashamed of yourselves (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:Fired for dissent at a law firm? Well, duh! (Score:2)
Pfft.
Re:Fired for dissent at a law firm? Well, duh! (Score:2)
Once you've got some experience under your belt you can get high enough in the company to have some influence.. even start your own company if you like. Office juniors don't get a say.
Re:Fired for dissent at a law firm? Well, duh! (Score:5, Funny)
I don't care whether it is good for my career or not, being a robot would be totally awesome.
Re:Fired for dissent at a law firm? Well, duh! (Score:2)
Re:Non-compete clauses are absurd... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Non-compete clauses are absurd... (Score:3, Informative)
They must be reasonably limited in time, space, and occupation. There are some jurisdictions which frown (a lot!) on non-competes, but please don't leave people with the false sense that they are never valid.
The absurdity of a non-compete varies with the circumstances. Compare two scenarios: McDonalds has non-compete for the guy asking "do you want fries with that"? Absurd. He
Re:Pro-DRM and working for the EFF (Score:2)
Time to find a new job.