Published work stands a chance of being misquoted and its original meaning distorted, the Australian government has taken the initiative of formulating laws that will protect the work against defamation and the consequences that culprits who participate in defamatory acts will face. The defamation law of Australia was formulated in 2005 to curb the increased rate of defamation cases that writers were taking to court to seek intervention, on protection of their rights in regards to the published or recorded work they had done.
In the early part of 2006 a uniform law of defamation was implemented to unify the context of the law against protecting publishers and their works in the Australian states (South Australian Government’s Justice Portfolio, Para 5). According to the law a person filing for deformation cases should be able to prove that the words used against them are false and portrays harm to their reputation, the words perceived as causing an act of defamation should depict a link to the writer filing the case and the act of defamation can be proved by a reliable third party who will not take sides or indulge in discriminative and favoritism acts.
However, the law does not discriminate against the right of freedom of speech as measures have been devised to protect innocent acts of defamation. The law is also flexible to cater for the freedom of expression. Culprits who face the judicial verdict are punished for their offenses by being directed to pay a certain amount of cash towards defiling the reputation of the defamed person. Therefore as am writing my article to present the views of the Albany residents I should be very careful to prevent writing defamatory information that will make the mayor to sue me because of falsely accusing him.
Any false information that will dent the reputation of the mayor affecting his political career will not be taken lightly by the mayor and his supporters (Holcroft, para 6). The Australian government is strict at ensuring the writers of their country enjoy the fruits of their labor as anybody caught criticizing the copyright law is perceived as prejudicing the judiciary system especially the judge who passed the right of observation of the law and stern consequences befall them.
Also interference with the efforts the Australian government takes to ensure the rights of the writers in their country are protected is perceived as contempt of court, since the copyright laws that see to the protection of published or recorded work are violated (Australian Advertising Standards Council, para. 18). The court perceives the violation as an attempt to abuse its presence and functions as the laws are passed in the court to be made viable. In an attempt to sue a person for deformation or copy of ones work thorough investigations should be done to get enough information that will support the claim filed.
This will avoid opportunities of misguiding the court to proclaim a verdict that does not exercise the rights of the accused. The act of misguiding a courts ruling is also perceived as an action of contempt to court as the consequences are reversal roles of the punishment implemented by the court to the accused (ACC, ACN 001228780). The increased rate of globalization has resulted to development of a lot of information that acts as guidelines to the many research projects that are being carried out. This has resulted to a relaxation in the observation and implementation of the copyright protection laws increasing the rate of piracy.
Also technological advancement has enabled easy access to published work thus increasing the opportunities of neglecting the copyright law. Government and private agencies that provide the copyright licenses have taken the urgency of publishers to protect their works to their advantage by commercializing their organizations. Huge amount of money is needed to enable a publisher to attain the license that will see to the respect of his work and acknowledgment of his effort in writing his articles. New strategies that go hand in hand with the advanced technology and the rate of globalization growth should be devised and implemented.
Also the consequences that the infringers face should be more firm and stern to pass the message across and eradicate the predicament of piracy that the publishers are facing. Word Count: 1591 Works Cited Advisory Council of Intellectual Property (ACIP). “ Consideration of Extending the Jurisdiction of the Federal Magistrates Service to Patent, Trade Marks and Design Matters. ”Australian Government (2007). Accessed on 1 April 2009<http://www. acip. gov. au/>. Australian Advertising Standards Council. “Advertising Self Regulation Systems. ” Advertising standards Bureau (2006).
Accessed 1 April 2009<http://www. advertisingstandardsbureau. com. au/pages/index. asp> Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC). “Trade Practices Act 1974, 2009 . ” Commonwealth of Australia (2008). Accessed 1 April 2009<http://www. accc. gov. au/content/index. phtml/itemId/862963>. Australian Copyright Council (ACC). “Southern Australian Legislation. ” Australian Copyright Council (2008). Accessed 1 April 2009 < http://www. copyright. org. au/information/introduction/intro-4. htm>. Garfield Laurence, Hampton Nathan and Stark Jeromy. “Fixing Copyright. ” Australian Copyright Council (2004).
Accessed 1 April 2009 <http://www. garfieldtech. com/copyright/fairUse. html>. Holcroft Norm. “About Private Policy”. Australian government solicitor (2009). Accessed 1 April 2009<http://www. agl. gov. au/> Office of Legislative Drafting and Publishing (OLDP). “ComLaw”. Federal Register of Legislative Instruments (2008). Accessed 1 April 2009 <http://www. comlaw. gov. au/>. South Australian Government’s Justice Portfolio. “Licencing Public Register. ”Office of Consumer and B usiness Affairs (OCBA) (2009). Accessed 1 April 2009 <http://www. ocba. sa. gov. au/index. html>.