Has Sam Breached Any Codes of Ethics - Assignment Example

Title: Analysis of Facts Name: Institution: Course: Tutor: Date: Introduction Sam has a blog on which he publishes articles for his subscribers to read. Tom gives him information about Carey and Justice Darren which he publishes with an aim of revealing information about Carey. This increases the attention to his articles that Sam even doubles his subscription fees. After Tom refuses to talk to Sam after realizing that Sam is benefiting from the information he provided to him about Carey, Sam decides to use any means to get information to post about Carey so that he keeps his readers happy. He therefore tracks Carey’s mother phone number and blackmails her to give her information about Carey so that he can keep his readers happy. Tom on realizing that Sam is able to keep posting information about Carey he uses the information posted by Sam and what he knows about Carey since he was in a relationship with her. The aim of Tom using Sam’s article to come up with his own article is to reduce the popularity of Sam’s articles. This situation results to breach of copyright laws, Australian consumer laws and the breached of the code of ethics as per the relevant Australian laws. Has Sam breached any Codes of Ethics? Part 1 Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media regardless of frontiers, according to the UN International Covenant on Civil & Political Rights Article 191. Sam however, independently depending his skill on the Article, he breaches some codes of ethics not understanding between his right and wrong. Australia ratified Universal Declaration of Human Rights and international Covenant on Civil and political Rights. The method of using “carriage service” in a content of information reasonably offensive and harassing is an offense, as states S 474.17(1) of the Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth)2. There is need for some restrictions though they can be excessive and they rather undermine the freedom of expression. Sam violates the freedom to Classless’ right. This is Trolling. Privacy is a right. Holding amounts of information about an individual and using it for self gain is breaching human rights. Collecting highly sensitive information such as health care, essential services and more is violating a right to privacy. The right to privacy is set out in art 17 of the ICCPR3. Interference with the privacy of an individual breaches a National Privacy Principle in relation to personal information that relates to the individual. Privacy Act 1988(Cth)4 Using force to dig information for one’s own benefit is Manipulation. Sam deceives Mrs. Classless so to get information to serve his own online magazine. Inside the magazine Sam on top of the case states “our sources”, an in-mind persuasion of market manipulation. This is kind of deception under offences of dishonesty, Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935-2012.5 Sam has misinterpreted yet misused the Human Rights Act 2004 (ACT) sec.16, the right to seek, receive and impart information of all kinds regardless of borders. Imposed safeguards are there to protect the right with penalties. Has Tom breached Sam’s rights? According to Copyright Act 1968 (Cth) 6a person is said to breach another person’s rights when they unfairly use a person’s information to making it their own so as to achieve a malicious gain or without any implied or expressed permission. This is by copying another person’s information and uses it as their own information or as a basis for their own information. Tom has breached Sam’s rights by publishing on his blog using the information Sam had published on his article because of the purpose for his doing so was to destroy Sam. According to the copyrights act it is infringement of rights when a person use another persons report for their own selfish gain or because of their character7. Tom is the one who had been providing Sam with information about Carey and when he found out that Sam is still drawing attention from people even when Tom is not the source of the information contained in his publications he is determined to interfere with Sam’s popularity and so decides to publish in his blog about Ca.rey using the information Sam had made up. Tom does this out of anger and the desire to make Sam unpopular among his fans so that he will be the one providing information to the public about Carey. This is a clear indication of breach of a person’s rights to copyright. The fact that Tom was publishing on Sam’s article with the aim of interfering with his popularity is also enough reason to charge Tom for breach of rights this is because his action was aimed at causing harm on Sam and interfering with his right to the publications because it was aimed at lowering the attention people give to his articles thus reducing the market for his articles. As per the amended copyright act 1968 a person is said to breach the rights of another if they use another persons report to make their own publication yet what they are writing is not a study report or a research. Tom wrote on Sam’s blog yet his information was not for research or a study report it was just for news report on Carey. Tom having been in a relationship with Carey earlier was in a position to access information about her without using what had published on his blog but since he went ahead and used what Sam made up in developing his article then he is liable for breach of Sam’s rights. Since it can also be proved that he used substantial part of the work developed by Sam it is enough evidence to charge Tom with infringement of Sam’s right to copyright8. Tom has been in a relationship with Carey in the past so he must be having some firsthand information about Carey, he can therefore defend himself by saying that it was coincidental that the information Sam found out about Carey is what he too knew having related with him. This is because it is not infringement of rights to a copyright when by coincident a person’s information is similar to another person’s publication provided they can prove so. The aim of the articles was to provide news reports to the readers Tom can therefore defend himself against the charge for breach of Sam’s rights by proving that his article was aimed at providing report news to his fans. Tom can also defend himself by proving that he used Sam’s substantial part of work to the percentage that is authorized. This is because other part of the information was drawn from his encounter with Carey in their relationship. 9Incase Tom is found liable for breach of Sam’s rights them Sam has a right to both civil and criminal remedies against Tom. This is because Tom may be required to pay for the damages he has subjected Sam to by interfering with his popularity, Sam may also be granted injunction such that Tom will be required to deliver the publication to Sam. Tom can also be taken for court action. This can be in a federal, magistrate, state or territory court where if found guilty can be fined for the action or given a jail term. Has Sam committed misleading and deceptive conduct? According to Australian consumer law artists should ensure that in trade or selling of their work they don’t engage in misleading or deceptive conducts so as to influence people to buy10. Sam decides to post on his web that he is providing free set of steak knife for every new subscribers who reads his post, this he does with an intention of drawing back the attention of the readers to his post. This is misleading and deceptive under the Australian consumer act because he gives the promise yet he knows he is experiencing problems with his cash flow and so when he has new subscribers he can’t meet the promise but ends up telling them that he is out of stock while there was nothing such as free steak knives in the first place. Sam committed a misleading and deceptive conduct according to the law because he provided information that was not true and yet managed to influences people to subscribe to his posts because they were anticipating getting free steak knives. Part 2 1) A common law is a type of legal system developed in England which comprises both Parliament-made law and judge-made law. 2) Under the Listening Devices Act 1992 (ACT), recording a private conversation where the other party consents to the recording would be permitted. 3) According to Trade Marks Act 1995 (Cth), a sign that is not distinct from the goods or services is not capable for registration. Conclusion According to the Australian laws Sam has breached the codes of ethics by interfering with Carey’s privacy by going to the extent of fetching personal information about her health without Carey’s consent. Tom also by using a substantial part of a Sam’s article to reduce his popularity makes him breach Sam’s rights right under the Copyright Act 1968. Sam promise to give new subscribers to his web free steak knives is against the consumer laws. References Berry, J. (2013). Book Review-Electronic Information and the Law. Murdoch University Law Review, 19(2), 11-16. Davison, M. J, Monotti, A. L, & Wiseman, L. (2011), Australian intellectual property law, Cambridge University Press. Nehme, M, & Adams, M. (2012), Section 18 of the Australian Consumer Law and Environmental Issues. Bond Law Review, 24(1), 2. O'Brien, D. S, & Fitzgerald, B. F. (2006), Digital copyright law in a YouTube world. Internet Law Bulletin Rimmer, M. (2012), A Submission to the Australian Law Reform Commission on Copyright and the Digital Economy: Consumer Rights. Read More