Stories might seem like they've run their course, especially if you followed the likes of the Digital Economy Bill through the prism of Twitter. Now the Bill has become the Act, it's got a different hashtag.
In a sense, the story isn't over. The Tweets still keep coming. But the Act of Parliament is traditionally the final act. In story terms, it is the conclusion. Roll the credits. Cue continuity.
On that basis, the furore over the Digital Economy Bill might seem like a dim and distant memory from a previous parliamentary term, but the after effects of the resulting Digital Economy Act still resonate.
It was a painful Bill which tapped into a massive audience of internet consumers. Christian Payne wrote passionately for the BBC College of Journalism on the subject in the final days before the Digital Economy debate.
Last night James Murdoch's speech revisited one of the core arguments. So too a #digitalsurrey discussion at the University of Surrey.
There were moments during the event when it felt like speaker @JamesFirth might possibly have been preaching to the choir. When they weren't Tweeting, some members of the audience interjected, too, with reasonably heated discussions about the passing of the Bill into law and some of its failings. Sure, the presentation wasn't primarily about journalism, but it was still difficult to overlook the implications of what he was talking about.
Music copyright seemed like a fairly universal subject and consequently a safe bet. We all like music. We all of us - to a greater or lesser extent - consume it in one form or other. The Digital Economy Act will now penalise those who download tracks from the internet illegally. Was that fair for a generation used to getting whatever it wanted from the internet for free?
James offered a possible solution: reducing the period of copyright from 70 to 30 years would make for a fairer world, albeit one favouring the internet user rather than the artist.
Was he being shortsighted or deliberately provocative? Where would artists and songwriters earn their revenues if the copyright period was reduced - one proposal being as low as five years? Was it really fair to so significantly reduce the shelf-life of an artist's output?
I had to leave soon after the end of the presentation. Little time to stick around and chat.
But when my taxi driver started questioning me about the event and then sharing his view on it all, the parallels with journalism started to hove into view.
"If you flout the new law and download stuff illegally, you'll have your internet connection taken away," I said, imagining I was standing in for Victoria Derbyshire on BBC Radio 5 Live.
"What about the poor people who can't afford to pay for music?" he protested, "Why shouldn't they download music for free?"
Predictably smug, I communicated what I thought was the ultimate rebuttal: "Surely, if they have access to the internet they can afford to pay for the track!"
"The internet is free in the library," he replied.
"That doesn't make it OK. Why shouldn't the artist or the songwriter be paid for their work?"
"Because they can earn their money in different ways. I'm never going to earn enough to afford an arena gig, but the likes of Lady Gaga sells out her gigs. Let them earn their money that way. I should be able to get their work for free."
Sadly, however, there wasn't time to pursue the discussion. My train was departing only a few minutes later.
My taxi driver's honest and genuine viewpoint was enlightening, though. Maybe there's something in what he says. If he - and a generation of other people - has become accustomed to the internet being an ungoverned, unaccountable and largely free source of on-demand media, does that make the Digital Economy Act an infringement of the core ideals of the medium?
Or, is it a long overdue piece of legislation designed to reign in those who have taken things just a step too far? Is it right that some might consider it OK to illegally download media from the internet just because it's found on the internet?
And if that's the case, is the ever-nearer paywall for the Times as much an opportunity to invest in journalism as it is to shift us back to what older generations have always taught us: if you want it, you have to pay for it.
Or, is it - as someone else pointed out at #digitalsurrey - merely a stop gap while the established industries across all media and vocal, internet-savvy consumers battle it out for a 21st century alternative to what some consider is an antiquated copyright system. Will this issue come back? Will there be another opportunity to have a stab at the story?
It's all questions and speculation. Typical journalism. Typical filler when nothing's actually happened.
But, it serves an interesting purpose. Because it reminds me that all the players - the potential contributors - are already there in place, currently taking a breather.
If and when another discussion over the Digital Economy Act fires up, we should be ready. Just because a Bill has become an Act doesn't mean the story has necessarily reached its denouement.
