By Andy McCue, 4 July 2005 12:55
NEWS A British IT consultant accused by the Hollywood movie industry of running a BitTorrent file-sharing hub has been sacked by his employer after appearing on BBC 2's Newsnight programme last week to comment on the US Supreme Court ruling on Grokster.
Alex Hanff was served with legal papers by the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) earlier this year, which claims Hanff's DVD-Core website had been helping people to illegally download copyrighted films.
It was on the back of this that Hanff was asked to appear on Newsnight to comment on the US Supreme Court ruling that peer-to-peer companies such as Grokster could be held responsible for the copyright piracy on their networks.
But on his return to work the next day Hanff was sacked by Aldcliffe Computer Systems in Lancaster, where he had been working for just a week.
The company said that he failed to disclose the pending MPAA file-sharing civil lawsuit during the application process for the job and only became aware of it from the Newsnight interview.
Tribal Group, the parent company of Aldcliffe Computer Systems, said in a statement: "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."
But Hanff claims the company gave him permission to leave work early to appear on Newsnight and said he plans to appeal against the dismissal at an employment tribunal.
He told silicon.com: "They are claiming they fired me because of my opinion, which is a breach of my human rights."
In the meantime Hanff said he has been advised by his legal representatives to ignore the MPAA civil action.
"It is a civil case and the MPAA has no jurisdiction in the UK," he said.
Plus: Read our leader on whether recent sackings are too heavy-handed.
Comments
There are 3 comments. Join the discussion
1. Tim. Pickford-Jones
If this man failed to declare pending litigation, and it was presumably a question on his application form as it certaily is on ours, then the company has every right to dismiss him, as he was in breach of contract.
He should not be surprised that his now widely publicised beliefs, that run counter to his employment, have got him into hot water. I think he missed the point terribly if hie thinks that taking time off and going on TV was the reason for his sacking.
If he wishes to wage war against society and "The Establishment" then he will find that he will be an early casualty. Human rights? What about the rights of those who work and give of themselves to produce the items whose copyright this man thinks he can plunder at will?
2. The Sarx
Clearly he knows very well that the sacking was nothing to do with appearing on a TV show <em>on paper<em>, but it seems likely that had he not made omissions on his job application, his employeres would've found some other way to nobble him.
It raises a question about us IT workers though.
I suspect that most techies are happy to work 9-5 on projects that are morally ambiguous and keep their mouths shut until they get home. I should know - I used to work for BP...
However its hard not to see how the current hoo-hah over copyright and IP is driven entirely by anything more noble than pure, unadulterated corporate greed. As techies don't we have an obligation to add our two penn'orth to the current debate?
3. stephen potterghost
A) Screenheads amaze me. You equate believing something as an opinion to an action. Might you have a better government? Then we must imprison you for sedition!
B) Pending litigation must at least share a jurisdiction to be valid. Or: Are you aware that everyone doing business with any company or using any product made by any company doing business in the United States has pending litigation in the Courts of Cuba? Have you declared it? No? Then you MUST be fired at once for being in breach of contract!
Wits seem in short supply. At
Tuppence a thought, Techies weigh in!