Missouri college fights music downloading with copyright quiz : Macleans OnCampus

"Interesting strategy to help curb campus violations of copyright infringement." -- HSM

 

Missouri college fights music downloading with copyright quiz

By Macleans.ca | June 9th, 2008 | 3:46 pm

Most Popular

• February 19, 2008 -- 2008 STUDENT SURVEYS: Complete results
• November 8, 2007 -- Our 17th Annual Rankings
• February 7, 2008 -- 2008 STUDENT SURVEYS: web-exclusive charts

Filed Under: News

A tech-savvy university near the Missouri Ozarks is resorting to an old standby to reduce illegal music downloads by students: the pop quiz.Missouri University of Science and Technology now requires students to ace a six-question quiz on digital copyright law to get six hours of access to peer-to-peer software they can use to share music and movies online.

The quiz has cut copyright complaints on campus from recording industry to eight this academic year, down from 200 in 2006-07, said Tim Doty, a campus systems security analyst.

“We’re still allowing peer-to-peer access,” Doty said, “but in a controlled fashion. We’re providing them the information to make an informed decision.”

Missouri S&T students who violate copyright law may lose their Internet privileges or face fines, community service, extra research assignments or suspension from classes.

Violations of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act also can draw lawsuits by the recording industry, which often cost several thousand dollars to settle. Universities that fail to stop repeat offenders can face liability too.

Several schools have addressed the problem by eliminating access to peer-to-peer software, even though it is used by academic researchers to share data. Most schools that continue to allow access have toughened penalties for piracy, including completing tests like Missouri S&T’s or watching an anti-piracy DVD provided by the recording industry. The Missouri school appears to be the only U.S. campus that requires a test in advance, Doty said.

At Stanford, students who don’t remove illegal downloads from their computers must pay $100 to reconnect to the Internet once they’re found out. A second offence boosts the reconnection fee to $500.

Jonathan Lamy, a Recording Industry Association of America spokesman, applauded schools’ efforts to teach students about copyright law.

“What we’ve found to be the most effective is a comprehensive approach that employs a combination of tools: innovative educational programs, legal ways to enjoy music and technological tools that prevent the misuse of campus networks in the first place.”

-with a report from CP

Missouri college fights music downloading with copyright quiz : Macleans OnCampus

Steve Marsel Photo Blog: Orphan Works - Locating Copyright Holders By Attorney Lloyd J. Jassin

Steve Marsel Photo Blog: Orphan Works - Locating Copyright Holders By Attorney Lloyd J. Jassin

"Intersting article/resource for aiding those who are attempting to locate the copyright holder of orphan works"  HSM

Orphan Works - Locating Copyright Holders By Attorney Lloyd J. Jassin

Locating Copyright Holders

By Attorney Lloyd J. Jassin

Getting Permission
for the complete text of this article go to:

http://www.copylaw.com/new_articles/permission.html

If you intend to use someone's copyrighted work, unless the use is considered a fair use, you must obtain that person's written permission. Under federal copyright law, only the copyright owner or someone acting with the owner's authority, such as a publisher, can grant that permission. While not every unauthorized use of a copyrighted work is an infringement, whenever you use another person's words, illustrations, photographs, charts or graphs in your own work you must be sensitive to the risk of infringing that individual's copyright.
The following information is provided to help you plan your permission strategy and locate copyright holders more easily. For a more detailed approach, consult The Copyright Permission & Libel Handbook, by Jassin & Schechter (John Wiley & Sons).
Where to Begin. Begin your search with the copyright notice. The copyright notice identifies who owns the copyright. However, the copyright owner does not always have the authority to grant you permission. For permission to quote from a book, you must contact the publisher’s rights department. If the publisher has gone out of business, or the book is out of print, you’ll need to trace the author by doing a copyright search or contacting one of the authors’ organizations listed below.
It Takes Time. The permission process should begin when you start researching and preparing your work. Permission requests are often ignored, denied or lost. Unless the use is considered a fair use, your work cannot be published without proper permissions.
Use Common Sense. All sources of material you’ve borrowed or quoted from should be flagged and identified. Knowing where a particular quote, passage, or photograph came from will save you hours of work later on. And, remember, there may be multiple copyright owners of the material you want to use.

Locating Copyright Holders

Useful links and postal addresses to assist you identify and locate rights holders:
I. Trade & Professional Groups (A-Z)
II. Licensing Organizations & Searchable Databases
a) Authors
b) Photographers
c) Songwriters
d) Visual Artists
e) Motion Pictures
III. Online Copyright Permission Pages
a) Book Publishers
b) Playwrights
c) Magazines & Journals
IV. Search Copyright & Trademark Office Records
a) Search Copyright Office Records
b) Search Trademark Office Records
c) Intellectual Property Research Firms
V. Miscellaneous
Find A Grave
Online Telephone Directories
Vital Records (United States)
I. TRADE AND PROFESSIONAL ORGANIZATIONS
Advertising Photographers of America(APA)
PO Box 361309
Los Angeles, CA 90036
800-272-6264 (Tel.)
www.apanational.org

for the complete text of this article go to:

http://www.copylaw.com/new_articles/permission.html

www.stevemarselstudio.com

www.stevemarselstock.com

www.stevemarselarchives.com

www.stevemarselgalleries.com

June 09, 2008 in Copyright | Permalink

Steve Marsel Photo Blog: Orphan Works - Locating Copyright Holders By Attorney Lloyd J. Jassin

Voxant, the New Media Network, Supports Copyright Protection as Critical to Monetizing Online Distribution

Voxant, the New Media Network, Supports Copyright Protection as Critical to Monetizing Online Distribution

"new businesses or business models to meet the demands of the copyright society....."  HSM

 

Voxant, the New Media Network, Supports Copyright Protection as Critical to Monetizing Online Distribution

Largest Online Syndication Network Has More Than 2.4 Million Fully Licensed News, Sports and Entertainment Clips Available to Web Publishers & Bloggers

HERNDON, Va.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Voxant, the new media network, stated today that piracy does not have a place in online video and news industry. Reacting to recent legal challenges by media against those who download, repackage and distribute content in violation of copyrights, Voxant claimed that piracy sets all parties back as the industry matures in determining how to monetize online distribution.

“Voxant has always believed that copyrights matter. We recognize that Web publishers, advertisers and content providers have everything to win from respecting licensing agreements,” offered Marcien Jenckes, Voxant CEO.

Voxant negotiated licensing and distribution deals with news organizations before launching its online syndication network in May 2007. Voxant pushes fully licensed, online video news, sports and entertainment from more than 300 premium content producers to more than 30,000 Web site publishers and bloggers.

This approach has worked well for Voxant. For the past three months, ComScore has reported that an average of more than 11 million unique visitors worldwide viewed Voxant’s fully licensed content throughout its network. Voxant’s inventory grew to more than 2.4 million fully licensed video, articles and photographs from more than 300 of the most well respected news and information organizations.

Moreover, Voxant believes the need to steal content is unfounded. News and entertainment organizations are actively looking for ways to license and distribute their content to the long tail of the Web, recognizing that they will only get a fraction of viewers if they relied on attracting visitors to their own site. At the same time, advertisers want to be affiliated with fully licensed, professionally produced content. To that end, news and entertainment organizations have negotiated licensing agreements with companies such as Voxant.

“News organizations want to distribute content in such a way that protects their licensing rights. This isn’t the wild west of the Internet; there are basic business practices that need to be respected,” offered Art Bushnell, Voxant, Vice President of Sales and Business Development.

Serious Web publishers and bloggers want to abide by the law, respect fellow online entities and attract advertising. Voxant’s network offers content providers and advertisers a unique opportunity to reach engaged online audiences outside of major sites. Voxant is uniquely positioned to be a powerful ad network for Web advertisers that want to capture the full spectrum of Internet users, with campaigns that use contextual and demographic targeting to reach Internet users outside of the top portals.

About Voxant

Voxant is building a new kind of network that delivers unparalleled licensed content, advertising and syndication services to the millions of Web sites and niche communities that comprise the Web. Voxant’s 30,000+ publisher affiliates have access to the Web’s largest, most diverse selection of free, high quality, fully licensed news and information for their Web sites and blogs. Voxant provides full monetization while maintaining control over content integrity, quality and branding for more than 300 content providers. For more information, please visit www.voxant.com.

Voxant, the New Media Network, Supports Copyright Protection as Critical to Monetizing Online Distribution

Virgin warns illegal downloaders: stop or face prosecution - News, Music - The Independent

 Virgin warns illegal downloaders: stop or face prosecution - News, Music - The Independent

Virgin warns illegal downloaders: stop or face prosecution

By Amol Rajan
Saturday, 7 June 2008

The age of illegal music downloads could soon be over. The UK's largest provider of home broadband is to warn internet users building up vast libraries of music that they could be prosecuted.

From next week, Virgin Media will send letters to thousands of households where music is either being downloaded or illegally shared. Many of the recipients are likely to be the unsuspecting parents of teenagers who hoard free downloads offered by file-sharing services. Research shows the majority of them are unaware their children are breaking the law.

The campaign is a joint venture between Virgin Media and the British Phonographic Industry (BPI), which represents the major record labels. The BPI ultimately wants internet companies to implement a "three strikes and out" rule to warn and ultimately disconnect the estimated 6.5 million customers whose accounts are used for regular criminal activity.

Geoff Taylor, the chief executive of BPI, said the partnership between ISPs and his industry needed to flower, adding that the deal with Virgin was a "significant first illustration of this".

"Virgin Media is the first ISP to publicly address the problem. It is a socially responsible ISP and I think other ISPs will look at this and see progress. I am very encouraged they have engaged with us. They understand the rights of musicians," he said.

"Education is the absolute key to reducing the amount of illegal downloading ... new partnerships with ISPs can help build an internet in which music is properly valued."

Virgin has stopped short of threatening any of its 3.5 million subscribers with disconnection, saying it first wants to "educate" customers during a 10-week trial campaign. Their letters will, however, be accompanied by a stern written warning from the BPI, which will threaten both disconnection and a court appearance for those who continue to download illegally.

Campaigns in the US and France have increased the pressure on the Government to act. The Business minister, Shriti Vadera, said: "This is a very welcome first step ... to educate consumers about unlawful file sharing, which damages our vibrant economy."

There remain major sticking points on the implementation of the law, however. These include uncertainty over precisely who will arbitrate disputes – for example when customers claim to have been victims of "wi-fi piggybacking" in which users link up to a paid-for wireless network that is not their own.

File-sharing and the law

*If you use peer-to-peer applications to copy or distribute copyrighted material such as music, films and software, and do so without paying royalties, you are almost certainly infringing the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. Internet service providers bear no liability for illegal file sharing because the content is not hosted on their servers. Although such files may be transmitted across an ISP network, ISPs are "mere conduits" of information, as per the E-Commerce Regulations 2002.

Virgin warns illegal downloaders: stop or face prosecution - News, Music - The Independent

Digital copyright: it's all wrong - Perspectives - Opinion - Technology

 

Digital copyright: it's all wrong - Perspectives - Opinion - Technology

Digital copyright: it's all wrong

Graeme Philipson
June 10, 2008

Advertisement

A draft treaty proposes draconian measures to protect copyright.

THE forces of reaction are fighting back. As they often do, they are carrying out their planning in secret, in the knowledge that if more people knew of their activities they would not be allowed to get away with it.

The US (surprise, surprise) has circulated a draft "Discussion Paper on a Possible Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement" (ACTA) for the next G8 meeting, in Tokyo in July. The full text of the document has been published on Wikileaks (wikileaks.org).

The ACTA draft is a scary document. If a treaty based on its provisions were adopted, it would enable any border guard, in any treaty country, to check any electronic device for any content that they suspect infringes copyright laws. They need no proof, only suspicion.

They would be able to seize any device - laptop, iPod, DVD recorder, mobile phone, etc - and confiscate it or destroy anything on it, merely on suspicion. On the spot, no lawyers, no right of appeal, no nothing.

The draft contains other draconian measures. It proposes a governing body for copyright protection that would operate outside organisations such as the World Trade Organisation (WTO) and the UN. In short, it proposes a global police force, answerable to no one, with intrusive powers that vastly exceed those currently available to adherents of the concept of intellectual property.

The proposed treaty is being sponsored by a small group of US Congress members, all of whom Wikileaks says have received significant contributions from major record companies and film studios. As they say, "follow the money".

The first newspaper to break the story was Canada's The Ottawa Citizen, which in a story by Vito Pilieci on May 24 picked up on the Wikileaks posting. Since then the blogosphere has been rife with stories about the move. Most commentators are outraged that such a proposal is even being considered.

For 10 years in this column and elsewhere I have been arguing that the concept of copyright, and by extension most forms of so-called "intellectual property", are irrelevant in the digital era. I was once, with just a few others, a voice in the wilderness. Now most people I talk with agree.

The copyright mafia have tried all sorts of things, including the absurdity of Digital Rights Management (DRM), which attempts to use technology to hobble technology. They have maliciously prosecuted individuals for the "crime" of copying music from one medium to another.

DRM is struggling, but we still see stupidity everywhere. Apple doesn't let you copy stuff off your iPod - you have to use third-party software to perform what should be a simple task. Foxtel's iQ and Austar's MyStar don't let you copy stuff off those boxes to other media.

Downloaded movies self-destruct after a limited time. It is still illegal in Australia to copy a CD to another CD (only "format shifting" is allowed), or to record a TV show for any other purpose than watching it once.

Whether this absurd treaty becomes reality or not, it indicates the lengths to which some are prepared to go. They will use any means to fight a technology that threatens their anachronistic monopoly of the distribution of digital content.

Clever people are taking advantage of the technology to develop new business models and reach new audiences. Bands are bypassing record companies and going direct to consumers. Authors are publishing online. Small moviemakers are finding new outlets through the wonders of the internet.

The big record companies and film studios have a clever answer - turn everybody into criminals. Use treaties and laws to try to prevent people doing what comes naturally and, in the digital age, easily.

The most that can be hoped of the proposed ACTA treaty is that, if it comes into being, it will further expose the futility of legislating against the key advantage of digital technology - the ease with which content can be stored, copied and transmitted. Where the technology is liberating people and content, the powers of reaction are attempting to stifle it.

Fortunately they are on the wrong side of history. When the full details and consequences of this treaty become widely known, I believe the effect will be the opposite of what its authors intend. It contains so little understanding of the way the digital world works that the backlash against it will be massive, accelerating the inevitable death of the out-of-date business models it is vainly trying to protect.

graeme@philipson.info

This story was found at: http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2008/06/09/1212863545123.html

Keeping research data safe : JISC

Keeping research data safe : JISC 

Author: Neil Beagrie; Julia Chruszcz; and Brian Lavoie

Publication date: 12 May 2008

Publication Type(s): Reports

JISC theme(s): e-Research¹, Information environment²

This study has investigated the medium to long term costs to Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) of the preservation of research data and developed guidance to HEFCE and institutions on these issues. It has provided an essential methodological foundation on research data costs for the forthcoming HEFCE-sponsored feasibility study for a UK Research Data Service. It will also assist HEIs and funding bodies wishing to establish strategies and TRAC costings for longterm data management and archiving.

Executive summary

The rising tide of digital research data raises issues relating to access, curation and preservation for HEIs and within the UK a growing number of research funders are now implementing policies requiring researchers to submit data management, preservation or data sharing plans with their funding applications. This study provides: Research funders are implementing policies requiring researchers to submit data management, preservation or data sharing plans with their applications

Brief overviews of the potential benefits to HEIs of preservation of research data; issues that HEIs will need to consider when determining the medium to long-term costs of data preservation; and different service models. A framework and guidance for determining costs consisting of:

• A list of key cost variables and potential units of record
• An activity model divided into pre-archive, archive, and support services
• A resources template including major cost categories in TRAC; and divided into the major phases from our activity model and by duration of activity

A series of case studies from Cambridge University, King’s College London, Southampton University, and the Archaeology Data Service at York University, illustrating different aspects of costs for research data within HEIs. Recommendations for future work and use/adaptation of software costing tools to assist implementation

Overall our approach has focused on developing a framework for determining costs and the major deliverable from the study has been the costing framework.

In addition our case studies and specific work on costs provide valuable examples of research data costs. Given the emerging nature of the field, the limited time for the study, and sample size of case studies and interviews these must be regarded as illustrative examples of costs. However there are a number of emerging findings from them which are potentially very significant and which we have recommended should be explored and tested further in future work:

Institutional data repositories

Our case studies suggest that the service requirements for data collections and the best structure for organising relevant services locally will be more complex than many have thought previously. Both Cambridge and KCL are developing central repositories to work with departmental facilities and discussing federated local data repositories for research data preservation combining services and skills from central and departmental repositories. Costs for the central data repository component at Cambridge and KCL are an order of magnitude greater than that suggested for a typical institutional repository focused on e-publications alone. These costs are discussed in greater detail in Chapter 10 of the full report and briefly summarised below:

Institutional Repository (epublications)
Staff
Equipment (capital depreciated over 3 years)

Annual recurrent costs
1 FTE
£1,300 pa

Federated Institutional Repository (data)
Annual recurrent costs
Staff
Equipment (capital depreciated over 3 years)

Cambridge
4 FTE
£58,764 pa

KCL
2.5 FTE
£27,546 pa

Long-term digital preservation costs

The profile of costs across functions within the national data centres we interviewed appears to be very consistent. It was notable that they all believed their accessioning and ingest costs were higher than ongoing long-term preservation and archiving costs. For example the following approximate division of costs across high-level archive functions of our activity model were suggested for the UK Data Archive:

Acquisition and Ingest
Archival Storage & Preservation
Access

c. 42%
c. 23%
c. 35%

The implications of this for the cumulative long-term costs of archiving research data are particularly interesting and perhaps point to potentially effective management strategies (addressing issues early during acquisition and ingest) for managing longer-term costs. In a similar vein, the Archaeology Data Service (ADS) has been in operation for 10 years and provided an interesting projection of its long-term preservation costs for research data based on its costs to date and ongoing trends. This shows relatively high costs in the early years after accessioning but costs declining to a minimal level over 20 years as follows:

The ADS projection is a complex mix of underlying trends such as long-term declining data storage costs, costs for ongoing actions such as preservation interventions (file format migrations),and assumptions of archive growth which provide economies of scale. However, the implications of these factors and projection for sustainability of data archives e.g. via archive charges to project budgets, are notable and worthy of more extensive study and testing.

Archive economics

We have observed and documented a number of significant issues for archives and preservation costs including:

• Timing Our activity model allows for consideration of relative costs arising from when activities are undertaken. We provide examples such as that from Digitale Bewaring Project which estimated costs c. 333 euros for the creation of a batch of 1000 records in the pre-archive phase. In contrast once 10 years have passed and material has been transferred to an archive it may cost 10,000 euros to ‘repair’ a batch of 1000 records with badly created metadata.
• Efficiency curve effects Our case studies illustrate a number of efficiency curve effects. The start-up phases of repositories reflect both the ramping-up of activities e.g. recruitment of staff and specific start-up activities such as developing new policies and procedures for the archive. The start-up costs particularly in terms of staff time can be substantial. The operational phases reflect increasing productivity and efficiency as procedures become established, tested and refined and the volume of users and deposits increases.
• Economy of scale effects We identify the importance of economies of scale and the impact this has on unit costs for digital preservation. As an example, the University of London Computer Centre (ULCC) which runs the National Digital Archive of Datasets, provided us with costs for accession rates of 10 or 60 data collections: a 600% increase in accessions only increases costs by 325% as a result of economy of scale effects.

'First- mover innovation' costs

Within our activity model we have identified digital preservation costs attributing to the traditional areas of archive storage, data management and preservation planning. However in addition we have identified activities and costs relating to the category of 'First- Mover Innovation' Costs. Where preservation functions and file formats are evolving a high-degree of R&D expenditure might be required in implementation phases and in developing the first tools, standards and best practices. Many of the disciplines and archives covered in this study have made considerable investments as communities in evolving shared standards, practices, and tools and we believe this could be making a significant impact on their long-term digital preservation costs.

The cost framework

Our case study sites found the cost framework approach of value to their institutions and it will benefit from wider adoption, testing and evolution in other HEIs. Its particular strengths are:

• It is based on Full Economic Costs (FEC) which are not in or partial in other models. We believe absence of FEC (a) can distort business cases and under-estimate cost benefits eg for automation, and also mean (b) HEIs cannot accurately compare in-house or out-source costs
• It can cost for in-house archive, full or partial shared service(s), or archive charges to projects and is implementation and technology-neutral. It is applicable in most digital preservation contexts, regardless of choices involving system architecture, preservation strategy, or service delivery
• It is tailored for research data by allowing for different data collection levels and preservation aims, and data-specific activities such as generating products from data

Summary of recommendations

This has been an intensive study over a period of 4 months focusing on the issue of the preservation costs of research data for UK HEIs. Our recommendations for future work to develop and implement outcomes from the study are discussed in detail in Chapter 11 of the full report and summarised below:

Recommendation 1
The outcomes of this study should be considered and utilised by the forthcoming JISC Data Audit Framework study.

Recommendation 2
Departments and Central Services within HEIs should utilise recurrent data audits to inform both their initial appraisal and development of data policies and future capacity planning for services.

Recommendation 3
HEIs should consider utilising the US National Science Board (the governing body for the National Science Foundation) long-lived data collection levels to aid understanding and categorisation of user requirements and costs over time.

Recommendation 4
HEIs should consider federated structures for local data storage within their institution comprising data stores at the departmental level and additional storage and services at the institutional level. These should be mixed with external shared services or national provision as required. HEIs should work with and utilise national and international disciplinary data archives where these exist. The hierarchy of data stores should reflect the detailed nature of the content, services required, and the changing nature of its importance over time.

Recommendation 5
We recommend consideration of the study and further work on development and implementation of relevant cost models and tools to HEIs, research funders, and service providers.

Recommendation 6
JISC should produce a short briefing paper or summary of this report and its findings aimed at senior managers including university academics, administrators and research support services.

Recommendation 7
JISC should consider developing project costing tools to build on and implement work within this study. These tools may be valuable for some of JISC’s own projects and may also be of interest to other research funders and have potential for joint funding and development.

Recommendation 8
JISC should consider undertaking additional work to examine how the cost components and variables defined in our framework can be further quantified, and what additional data and data collection mechanisms are needed to support them.

Recommendation 9
JISC should consider further detailed study of longitudinal data for digital preservation costs and cost variables to extend the work of this study. Possibly this could be part of a UK based taskforce to feed into its joint international work on digital preservation costs.

Recommendation 10
JISC and/or other funders should consider funding further work on quantifying the benefits of research data preservation.

Download the full report below

Keeping research data safe : JISC

Op-Ed Columnist - Paul Krugman - Bits, Bands and Books, Paying for Creativity in a Digital World - Op-Ed - NYTimes.com

 Op-Ed Columnist - Paul Krugman - Bits, Bands and Books, Paying for Creativity in a Digital World - Op-Ed - NYTimes.com

Op-Ed Columnist

By PAUL KRUGMAN

Published: June 6, 2008

Do you remember what it was like back in the old days when we had a New Economy? In the 1990s, jobs were abundant, oil was cheap and information technology was about to change everything.

Then the technology bubble popped. Many highly touted New Economy companies, it turned out, were better at promoting their images than at making money — although some of them did pioneer new forms of accounting fraud. After that came the oil shock and the food shock, grim reminders that we’re still living in a material world.

So much, then, for the digital revolution? Not so fast. The predictions of ’90s technology gurus are coming true more slowly than enthusiasts expected — but the future they envisioned is still on the march.

In 1994, one of those gurus, Esther Dyson, made a striking prediction: that the ease with which digital content can be copied and disseminated would eventually force businesses to sell the results of creative activity cheaply, or even give it away. Whatever the product — software, books, music, movies — the cost of creation would have to be recouped indirectly: businesses would have to “distribute intellectual property free in order to sell services and relationships.”

For example, she described how some software companies gave their product away but earned fees for installation and servicing. But her most compelling illustration of how you can make money by giving stuff away was that of the Grateful Dead, who encouraged people to tape live performances because “enough of the people who copy and listen to Grateful Dead tapes end up paying for hats, T-shirts and performance tickets. In the new era, the ancillary market is the market.”

Indeed, it turns out that the Dead were business pioneers. Rolling Stone recently published an article titled “Rock’s New Economy: Making Money When CDs Don’t Sell.” Downloads are steadily undermining record sales — but today’s rock bands, the magazine reports, are finding other sources of income. Even if record sales are modest, bands can convert airplay and YouTube views into financial success indirectly, making money through “publishing, touring, merchandising and licensing.”

What other creative activities will become mainly ways to promote side businesses? How about writing books?

According to a report in The Times, the buzz at this year’s BookExpo America was all about electronic books. Now, e-books have been the coming, but somehow not yet arrived, thing for a very long time. (There’s an old Brazilian joke: “Brazil is the country of the future — and always will be.” E-books have been like that.) But we may finally have reached the point at which e-books are about to become a widely used alternative to paper and ink.

That’s certainly my impression after a couple of months’ experience with the device feeding the buzz, the Amazon Kindle. Basically, the Kindle’s lightness and reflective display mean that it offers a reading experience almost comparable to that of reading a traditional book. This leaves the user free to appreciate the convenience factor: the Kindle can store the text of many books, and when you order a new book, it’s literally in your hands within a couple of minutes.

It’s a good enough package that my guess is that digital readers will soon become common, perhaps even the usual way we read books.

How will this affect the publishing business? Right now, publishers make as much from a Kindle download as they do from the sale of a physical book. But the experience of the music industry suggests that this won’t last: once digital downloads of books become standard, it will be hard for publishers to keep charging traditional prices.

Indeed, if e-books become the norm, the publishing industry as we know it may wither away. Books may end up serving mainly as promotional material for authors’ other activities, such as live readings with paid admission. Well, if it was good enough for Charles Dickens, I guess it’s good enough for me.

Now, the strategy of giving intellectual property away so that people will buy your paraphernalia won’t work equally well for everything. To take the obvious, painful example: news organizations, very much including this one, have spent years trying to turn large online readership into an adequately paying proposition, with limited success.

But they’ll have to find a way. Bit by bit, everything that can be digitized will be digitized, making intellectual property ever easier to copy and ever harder to sell for more than a nominal price. And we’ll have to find business and economic models that take this reality into account.

It won’t all happen immediately. But in the long run, we are all the Grateful Dead.

Op-Ed Columnist - Paul Krugman - Bits, Bands and Books, Paying for Creativity in a Digital World - Op-Ed - NYTimes.com