This is slightly related to the industry, however just interesting in general.

The following article talks about an experiment who's results seem to point that music, at least to the extent of what types of music we prefer, might be inherited in our genes. The study finds that cultures that have more similar genes have a higher correlation of their music being similar than cultures that are physically closer together.

The article:

http://www.nature.com/news/2007/071210/full/news.2007.359.ht...

With digital radio on the rise, there is enough space in the data stream to add additional information to radio broadcasts. Add that many audio carrying devices come equipped with small but high quality LCD screens, and that humans are highly visual creatures, you get radio stations that are experimenting with adding a visual aspect to radio.  Some examples of this are showing video taped interviews, band performances, playlists, sports scores, and the station's logo. Advertisements are sure to come. More in this article:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/click_online/7132171.s...

What does this mean? Is radio going the route of a cheapened TV broadcast? Most likely not. Radio still serves a large market of people made mostly of people in their vehicles who need to watch the road rather than a mini TV set. What is being talked about are images that are "glanceable". While in the car you may glance down to see what song is playing, or get an image of who is speaking, etc. It provides extra information without becoming TV.

Wired.com recently had a very enlightening interview with Universal Music's CEO Doug Morris. It gives some clues to what the major labels have been thinking, or rather, not thinking about the last decade or so, since online MP3 file-sharing has came about. Here is a quote from the article displaying the cluelessness of a multi-billion dollar corporation on it's own product, music:

Morris insists there wasn't a thing he or anyone else could have done differently. "There's no one in the record company that's a technologist," Morris explains. "That's a misconception writers make all the time, that the record industry missed this. They didn't. They just didn't know what to do. It's like if you were suddenly asked to operate on your dog to remove his kidney. What would you do?"

Personally, I would hire a vet. But to Morris, even that wasn't an option. "We didn't know who to hire," he says, becoming more agitated. "I wouldn't be able to recognize a good technology person — anyone with a good bullshit story would have gotten past me." Morris' almost willful cluelessness is telling. "He wasn't prepared for a business that was going to be so totally disrupted by technology," says a longtime industry insider who has worked with Morris. "He just doesn't have that kind of mind."

source:

http://www.wired.com/entertainment/music/magazine/15-12/mf_m...

The article also talks about Morris' current plan called Total Music, which currently involves buying an MP3 player whose price would include a subscription to download music on the internet through a website, which would most likely to be DRM MP3s. There are currently talks about integrating this with Microsoft's Zune to compete with Apple.

In Canada there is currently talks of imposing a $5/month levy on internet accounts. The money collected would go toward musicians in the music industry. If this levy were to go through, this would make file sharing, of at least music, legal in Canada.

article here: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20071205....

There is currently a similar levy in Canada on recordable media, collecting money for each CDR, cassette tape, DAT tape, etc. An FAQ on this subject can be found here:

http://www.cdrfaq.org/faq07.html

Believe it or not the United States has a similar levy law, dating to the early 90's. However this currently only extends to CDRs that are labeled "audio" CDRs, the rest are assumed to be for data - although there is no real difference between these two types.