Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: aldo_14 on July 05, 2005, 05:52:10 am
-
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/07/04/brit_sacked_for_newsnight/
[q] British man has been sacked for speaking out against heavy-handed copyright actions in the US after appearing on Newsnight last week.
Alex Hanff was asked to appear on last Monday's Newsnight programme to talk about the recent Supreme Court decision against Grokster. Hanff, who is from Lancaster, was of interest to Newsnight because back in March he was sued for copyright infringement by Paramount, Twentieth Century Fox, Universal and Warner Brothers - as exclusively revealed on El Reg here.
Hanff worked as a trainer and consultant for Aldcliffe Computer Systems, also based in Lancaster. He was given permission to leave work 45 minutes early to meet the Newsnight camera crew. He returned to work on Tuesday.
Hanff told the Reg: "At first everything was fine then at lunchtime the technical director came in and fired me. He told me it was because of my opinions and there was no right of appeal." Although Hanff had only been working at Aldcliffe Computer Systems for a week he said the full-time position was a dream job: "I turned down a higher-paid post because this was a career position and a fantastic opportunity."
The sacking was even more of shock, said Hanff, because he had had nothing but praise while working at Aldcliffe and had been told that, at interview, he had "blown all the other candidates out of the water".
Hanff said: "Democratic society is based on the ability to have opinions and to express those opinions - that's how society grows."
He said that after the sacking he received a call offering to increase his severance pay from one week to three months. On legal advice he declined the offer.
Tribal Group, which owns Aldcliffe Computing, said in a statement: "Mr Hanff was employed on a probationary basis for one week in one of our software companies. The decision to terminate his employment was made in order to defend our legitimate business interests. Mr Hanff has declared that he is opposed to copyright and intellectual property laws. Since much of our business is based around the protection of our copyright and intellectual property, we consider our dismissal of Mr Hanff entirely justified and appropriate."
The largely untested Human Rights Act does guarantee the freedom to have an opinion and to express that opinion.
Back in March, Hanff received a letter from lawyers Jenner&Block, representing the Motion Picture Association of America. He has been advised to ignore the letter because the MPAA has no jurisdiction in Europe.[/q]
-
Ah well. But standing out during a probationary period IS a bad idea, unless it's because you're doing top notch job (and even that, sometimes, can displease, go wonder).
Still, that's seriously screwed up :doubt:
-
My fired?
-
Tsk tsk tsk...well, that's life, I guess.
*begins ritual Greek pagan prayer and dance*
Oh, the gods of Olympus! Hear my prayer! By the almighty power of Zeus the thunderer, and the avenging Furies of the Plains! If Hanff deserved his sacking let him suffer it in silence, but if he was unjustly treated, I hereby curse Aldcliffe Computer Systems and demand that their pitiful human laws be wrenched from the ground, their grey, concrete buildings crumble as dust into the earth and that the people, who foolishly dare stand up against the divine laws of the gods, will suffer nothing worse than what they mete out on Hanff!
-
(http://people.clarkson.edu/~johndan/datacloud/images/milton.jpg)
They'll get what's coming to them in the end.
-
Originally posted by Knight Templar
My fired?
You're fired.
-
's the point. ;) *looks at title*
-
He should find out if he has a chance at winning a wrongful termination suit. This is just wrong.......
-
I don't know Kosh... lets think about it for a second. While he hasn't actually breached his companies copyright laws - they do have an obligation to themselves as a business. Think of it like a fire service employing a new driver who said he does believe in breaking the speed limits set by that fire service to get to an emergency. That makes him a liability that they couldn't afford to take the risk with. So it is with this man.
It's a tricky situation. On paper the man has done nothing wrong. But if he believes this way about copyright laws then it may be a matter of time before he did do something wrong. Personally - I think the company would do a better job in drawing up a contract for him to sign (as well as their other employees) stating they will not break the companies copyright or any of the customers that that company works with on pain of immediate contract termination of they do.
That way - everyone knows where they stand. There's a difference between saying something and actually doing it - and that contract I spoke of would be the defining difference.
-
You can't sack people because they might do something wrong; otherwise we're all out the job. If he was speaking in a personal capacity, there's no way in hell that should be used to judge him in a professional one.
-
Disgusting... :no:
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
You can't sack people because they might do something wrong; otherwise we're all out the job. If he was speaking in a personal capacity, there's no way in hell that should be used to judge him in a professional one.
Exepted I think Thunder doesn't ave it right there.
They sacked him because his philosophy didn't fit with the enterprises philosophy. One can argue about the liability of that reason, but i see many occurencies where I would do the same, so if it can work in some cases, it will work in the others. Plus the guy was on probatory period. He can sue all he want, he'll lose. If you publicly state opinions that goes against the interests of the place where you work, you can't be surprised if it's not taken well, since it quite simply discredits the image of the enterprise.
I will not cry on that guy's fate, imho he kind of deserved it (yeah, I've changed my mind, so what?).
-
Originally posted by Rictor
(http://people.clarkson.edu/~johndan/datacloud/images/milton.jpg)
They'll get what's coming to them in the end.
Rofl :)
-
Originally posted by Nico
Exepted I think Thunder doesn't ave it right there.
They sacked him because his philosophy didn't fit with the enterprises philosophy. One can argue about the liability of that reason, but i see many occurencies where I would do the same, so if it can work in some cases, it will work in the others. Plus the guy was on probatory period. He can sue all he want, he'll lose. If you publicly state opinions that goes against the interests of the place where you work, you can't be surprised if it's not taken well, since it quite simply discredits the image of the enterprise.
I will not cry on that guy's fate, imho he kind of deserved it (yeah, I've changed my mind, so what?).
But what of the precedent it sets? If it's considered a 'correct' dismissal, it means sacking someone for having a different opinion - expressed outside of work or a professional capacity - has a supporting legal precedent. Telling your mates down the pub that you think your boss is a bit of an arse would quite possibly become a dismissable offence.
-
I think you're missing the point though - it's the nature of what he said. At least from what has been posted I gather what it was. They say that his attitude to copyright infringement makes him a liability to the company. Just because he was asked outside of work doesn't mean he doesn't hold his own ethics within the work place as well.
However, that wasn't mentioned in the passage.
So from what I have to go on - it looks like he might well go back to his job and infringe their copyright interests. So they sacked him to prevent that - and the interests of their company.
Of course - they might be twisting his words - that much I don't know. In which case he should have right to appeal at least.
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
Telling your mates down the pub that you think your boss is a bit of an arse would quite possibly become a dismissable offence.
Get real, there's a big difference between telling a friend your boss is an arse, and claming on TV the ideals of the enterprise you're working for are wrong.
Besides, there's no legal issues about being an arse, there's quite some about copyrights.
-
Somehow the title of this thread (and the subject) have reminded me of that silly thing they do in Conan O´Brien´s show, Late night show or something, with the Donald Trump impersonation. They get a kick out of saying "You´re fired!" 200 times per show.
:ha: :ha: :ha:
-
Thing is, whilst I agree with the right of an artist to own their own IP etc, I also don't agree with the current copyright laws, since they are not designed around protecting artists, since individual artists rarely have a leg to stand on if a large corporation steals their IP (It has happened, 'Everyones Gone to the Moon' was stolen by Sony records and rocketed a paedophile to fame).
I use stuff written by Aldcliffe computers at work, they're not very good by the way ;) I don't see much about a DOS-based database that would really need copyrighting these days anyway.
So yes, this man could hold those opinions about copyright laws and still, as long as he does not commit gross misconduct within his workplace, there is absolutely no viable grounds for dismissal. That is British employment law, you have to actually do something wrong to be sacked for it, not think something wrong.
-
Originally posted by Flipside
I also don't agree with the current copyright laws
So, you too think your opinion is the one that matters? As much as I agree with it, you're doing the same thing as the guys that fired that sod, you think it should go according to YOUR opinion. See where I'm going?
-
Well, to be honest, I deal with the world as it is, whilst I don't agree with the current copyright laws, I still understand that they are the rule by which things are judged for now, and that any indescrepancies on that part are my own responsiblity.
This guy had done nothing other than state an opinion, he'd taken no damaging action. If they'd actually caught him doing something illegal, then fine, sack him, but what this company have done is no worse than saying that anyone who doesn't agree with, e.g. Blairs policies must therefore be a traitor to the UK. Just because I don't agree with those policies does not neccesarily mean I'm going to do anything to damage them either.
-
It's a simple case of free speech; it would be justifiable cause for sacking if he'd said it in a professional capacity, but it wasn't. Forget what he said - what right does the company have to judge people based upon their opinions outside the workplace?
-
Originally posted by Flipside
anyone who doesn't agree with, e.g. Blairs policies must therefore be a traitor to the UK.
Anyone who belongs to Blair's (or any part you belong to, for that matter, in GB) party and doesn't share its views, and publicly state it, has to resign. This is exactly the same thing, and I thank you for giving me the idea of such a fine exemple :D
Aldo, well I believe keeping a guy who made such statements would damage the image of the company. I guess I'm just a liberal whore, but heh :p
-
Originally posted by Nico
Aldo, well I believe keeping a guy who made such statements would damage the image of the company. I guess I'm just a liberal whore, but heh :p
If they were made within a personal capacity, they wouldn't have even been identified with the name of the company.
Incidentally, Claire Short & Robin Cook both very vocally disagreed with the government over the Iraq war and eventually resigned from their posts; but this remains irrelevant as they made their opinions known within their professional capacity as politicians (actually, Short didn't resign until 2 months after the war started, having changed her position to support it after a likely tongue lashing). Additionally, politics is arguably a unique situation where individuals are unable to have a distinct personal and professional public persona.
A more correct scenario, IMO, would be sacking a police chief for saying - within a clearly identified personal capacity - that he disagreed with the introduction of ID cards, or had a complaint about jail/rehabilitation policy.
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
Incidentally, Claire Short & Robin Cook both very vocally disagreed with the government over the Iraq war and eventually resigned from their posts; but this remains irrelevant as they made their opinions known within their professional capacity as politicians (actually, Short didn't resign until 2 months after the war started, having changed her position to support it after a likely tongue lashing). Additionally, politics is arguably a unique situation where individuals are unable to have a distinct personal and professional public persona.
I've had a very boring course over a few months about british politics this year. A member of the party, if he voices advices opposed to his party's go through the whipping system:
1) He's going through a "you should change our opinion because blablabla
2) he gets mild threats like "think of your carrer, dude"
3) he is asked to resign, in last resort (because when you make someone resign, he's likely to become an opponent later, if his carrer is not damaged by his rebellion -see 2)- )
Now I guess that's only in theory, but the Iraki war issue proved it is true, at least in case of major issues. People who kept straight against it had to resign.
Anyway, back on topic, it's clearly a matter of opinion. You have your own (that I respect, don't be mistaken), I have mine (that I don't belive is THE right opinion, but that I don't believe is a bad one either), I guess there is no use arguing any further, since we both won't be convinced by the other party ;).