Has Sam Breached Any Codes of Ethics in Relation to the Collection of Information for - Assignment Example

Law of Communication Student’s Name Institution Affiliation 1. Has Sam breached any Codes of Ethics in relation to the collection of information for, and the content of, his article ‘Carey update – not her first brush with the law’? Sam has breached the code of ethics as pertains to collection of information of his article. This is because he participated in unlawful collection of information for his organization publication. Prior to collection of individual information, it is always prudent to seek consent. This is prerequisite of the law. Sam infringed this law, as he did seek neither Carrey’s consent nor Daren’s. Individual consent is always important in information collection, as it is the only fair and lawful means of collection of information. Sam did not take reasonable steps in collecting the information. A lawful procedure of information collection requires reasonable steps1. First, the person should make contact with the person and make him/her aware of his organization. Secondly, the person collecting the information should establish the purpose for which the information is being collected. Thirdly, the person gathering the information should tell where and to whom the information should be disclosed to. Sam failed to follow these steps correctly. For example, he did not contact the concerned parties over his story. Seemingly, it was not lawful for Sam to call Carey’s mother. Sam is an imposter and legal action should be taken against him. This is because he posed as Carey’s doctor and maliciously collected private information from her. This act is illegal and prompts to infringement of laws outlined in the code of ethics. Sam deceitfully and maliciously collected Carey’s information from her mother and subsequently used it wrongly rather than the one that her mother was made to believe in. This is unlawful means of gathering information and warrant a legal action. Sam has also infringed the law by publishing private information in his online magazine. Darren and Carey have the right to privacy, and therefore, it was unlawful for Sam to engage the public in a private matter. The copyright Act 1968 part IX also gives a provision of moral rights on any individual who engages in collection of information2. It is morally right to collect information that is original and not deceptive3. On the other hand, Sam deceived the public in order to increase his magazine sales. He did not follow what the law says about the originality of information collected as well as the disclosure. 2. Has Tom breached Sam’s rights under the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth) in publishing on his blog the article ‘Carey and I – An affair to remember’? In your answer, discuss any defences that might be available to Tom and what remedies might be available to Sam. According to Copyright Act 19684, Tom has infringed the law upon publishing Sam’s rights. Sam’s article can be taken as an intellectual property that requires copyright protection. Sam’s article is an intangible product. Under the copyright act, no one has the right to share someone’s copyright-protected information without due authority from the owner or the owners of the intellectual property in question. According to the copyright Act, intellectual property rights cover all the rights that are related to literary work and artistic among many others5. The significant part of these rights in this case is the protection amid unfair competition. Tom infringed the rights to ownership of Sam’s intellectual property and more so proceeded to use the property in creating unfair business competition that was aimed at outdoing Sam’s original copyright protected work. In Australia, numerous statutory, as well as common laws protect Sam’s intellectual property. Some of these include Copyright act 1968, patents acts 1990 and trademark Act 1995. Protection of Sam’s intellectual property was essential in promoting his creativity and ensuring that he reaped the fruits of his work. Tom infringed the copyright act by reproducing and distributing Sam’s work without his prior permission. He also infringed the provisions of the act by publication, communicating to the public, as well as by adapting Sam’s work for his own benefits. Sam could possibly defend himself from the copyright infringement case through various fair dealing provisions. Fair dealing limits copyright laws and provides exceptions that could make anyone suspected to have infringed the act laws go scot-free. Fair dealing outlines probable defences against infringement actions of the rights provided in the act. In the case, Tom could possibly take the following fair dealing provisions to defend himself from Sam’s indictment. The first possible defence could be the defence of parody and satire. Section 41 of the copyrights act provides a fair dealing. It state that for purposes of parody or satire regarding distribution of literary, artistic or dramatic work the person involved is not liable of crime6. Using this limitation, Tom could possibly get way with the infringement crime through a claim that his copied work was only for purposes of parody or satire and not any other purpose. Secondly, Tom could use the defence of news reporting. Section 42 of the act provides a fair dealing when the accused uses dramatic, literary, artistic or musical work for purposes of news reporting7. The act states that if the person accused of infringing copyright laws for purpose of reporting news, then, he/she is not liable for the infringement. If Tom was arraigned in a court of law by Sam, he could possibly use this fair deal provision to defend himself by claiming that he copied Sam’s work for purposes of reporting news and not any other whatsoever. He could perhaps claim that he copied his work for purpose of reporting the news to a newspaper. Thirdly, Tom could use reproduction for reasons of professional advice or judicial proceedings. In the act, this fair deal provision is listed in section 43 of the copyright act. Tom could possibly defend himself by claiming that he copied Sam’s intellectual property with only one objective, giving professional advice to his clients. Fourthly, Tom could defend himself using section 43 c of the copyright act that claims that if copied work was for reproducing in books, periodicals as well as the newspapers publications, then, the individual involved is not liable for the act’s infringement. Tom could defend himself by claiming that he copied Sam with the aim of reproducing the same in newspapers and other publications. Fifth, Tom could use section 44 of the copyright act in defending himself by ascertaining that his copied work was purposefully for inclusion in education publications. Finally, Tom could defend himself using section 65 to section 73 of the copyright act in defending himself. These sections allow the use of copied information for the purpose of incidental use in vast of artistic works. Consequently, a number of remedies are available for Sam. For example, section 115 provides that the court could grant him benefits upon Tom’s infringement8. These benefits could be in terms of injunction to compensate him for purposes of damages caused because of profits. Section 115(3) allows the court to award him extra compensation for the damages caused9. Section 116 provides for damages caused in conversion of his work. These remedies can be summarised as injunction, account of profits, and damages. 3. Has Sam committed misleading and deceptive conduct under section 18(1) of the Australian Consumer Law in relation to his offer of a set of steak knives for new subscribers? According to section 18(1) of the ACL, Sam has committed a deceptive and misleading conduct10. This is because he offered a deceptive deal to his new subscribers. Section 18(1) Australian consumer law provides that, no individual in business that is either trade or commerce is entitled to engage in a conduct that is likely to mislead his potential clients11. The key elements of these section are conduct, trade, and mislead or deception. Sam has infringed this act by misleading and deceiving his customers in accessing his website. In order to lure the customers into his website, Sam decides to offer a fake deal of steak knives to anyone who purchases his online magazine. However, Sam refuses to offer his customers the deal by claiming that the magazine is out of stock. This is a deceptive conduct in commerce and it amount to infringement of the Australian Consumer Law. According to section 18(c) of ACL, trade or commerce is defined as any professional or business carried out in Australia with the aim of either making or not making profits12. The conduct of the trade or commerce encompasses how an individual carries him/herself in the trade. When an individual who is involved in a trade or commerce engages in offensive conduct, he/she does or fails to do what any act of the ACL provides. This criminal offence is punishable by law. A person in trade or commerce infringes the conduct when he/she makes an assurance that he is not intending to keep13. It is also infringement of the act when an individual in commerce or trade makes an opinion or prediction that is unreasonable. According to the act, the liability of conduct infringement lies to the advertiser, the advertising agency, the manufacturer, the retailer, and the clients. Silence or change of the promise may amount to a misleading act that is punishable. In this case, Sam’s misleading of his clients lead to an infringement of the act by making a deceptive advert in order to lure traffic to his website. Similarly, he committed a misleading promise of giving steak knives to his customers on every purchase of a copy of his online magazine. By refusing to adhere to his promise, Sam infringed the rights of his customers. PART 2 (1) Which of the following statements best describes the common law? d. Law that regulates relations between individuals within the jurisdiction (2) Which of the following would be permitted under the Listening Devices Act 1992 (ACT)? d. Recording a private conversation where the other party consents to the recording. (3) Which of the following would not be capable of registration under the Trade Marks Act 1995 (Cth)? b. A sign that is not distinct from the goods or services themselves. Read More