In the race to successfully develop new channels of communication such as cable television, CD ROMs, and on-line services, many new ways have opened up for distributors and publishers to transmit, receive, use and re-use audio visual material. The huge field of competitors includes television stations, book, record and computer software companies, theatres, museums and libraries and many others. To stay in the race, runners must attract a paying audience by securing the best content - films, programs, books, performances, computer software, and images - and make money by sharing in a percentage of the revenue earned with the makers and producers of the work.

With so many participants needing content just to be in the race, surely creative producers have struck it rich as their work is used again and again in dozens of different ways. For example, if someone writes a book or short story, it can be made into a film, into a CD ROM interactive version of the film, into a video game and also be made available in both text and visual forms on the computer-based internet. The extra royalties should add up to a tidy sum.

However, knowing just who is the exact "owner" of the different pieces of the complex jigsaw puzzle of creative input into audio visual products and programs is becoming increasingly difficult. Not only are there many new ways to distribute or publish material, but the new technologies also make endless copying and the "repurposing" of fragments of text, music and images a cheap and simple process in a way never envisaged when the idea of copyright was developed over a hundred years ago.

In the confusion over ownership and copying rights, artists and producers could find themselves cut off from revenue earned by others who use parts or all of their material in the new media. Such a handicap is hardly likely to encourage the investment of time and money in making quality, original work.

To add to these difficulties, the Copyright Act of 1968 is running out of breath and a poor second to the new developments. Our current laws are on shaky legs trying to deal with the new technologies of delivering copyright material, framed, as they were, before cable television and computers became new forms of "broadcasting' into your home. To clear up the mess, the government convened the Copyright Convergence Group, whose August 1994 report, Highways to Change, recommends many changes to the law to cater for the new course rules and conditions.

At the heart of film and television industries, and paying the considerable costs involved in making movies, television programs and other creative work, lies an out-of-date legal framework meant to protect the property of those involved. If what we want is good Australian programs to help us stay ahead of the pack, then we'll need some very clever and creative laws to both match and protect the ingenuity of Australian producers.