GIVE or take a few weeks, it's about a decade since the first great internet gold rush began. All manner of rash predictions were made and all kinds of ridiculous business propositions attempted to leave the ground.

Every industry, from banana importers to porn barons, began to get very excited about a brave new online world. Behold, they all screamed in unison, the internet is the future. Some probably thought they were about to don spacesuits and go to reside inside their computers.

One of my favourite internet- related fallacies was that the arrival of an online nirvana would bring about the demise of record labels. The belief was that bands would be able to communicate directly with their fans and thus avoid having to work with those nasty men and horrible women at Sony-BMG and Universal. A band would be able to sell CDs directly to its eager fanbase and not have to hand over a huge hunk of change to some middleman for the pleasure of doing so. Everyone would hold hands, put flowers in their hair and live happily ever after.

This was always going to be a non-starter, given that most bands can't even communicate with each another. The reason why record labels have thrived for so long is down to their ownership, manipulation and exploitation of copyright, catalogue and the means of distribution. It also helps that most acts are managed by individuals whose wealth, clout and success are a direct result of their long-term relationships with these big labels. The internet may have changed how labels get their music from A to B, but the copyright and catalogues still remain firmly within their grasp.

Heavy-handed use of digital rights management (DRM) mechanisms is just one tool which will ensure this situation remains the same for some time to come. Only consumer-friendly legislation can change this, and you can bet that the lobbying to maintain the status quo on this is quite intense.

Of course, the internet will cause some music industry obsolescence. It's already happened with the closure of hundreds of high street record stores; the bulk of those remaining in business are either now selling other things (DVDs, telephones, vacuum cleaners) or have turned into narrow-tailers (specialising in one or two niche genres).

But one prediction worth throwing out there for consideration is that the internet will eventually cause the demise of the big band. By 2036, you may not have macro acts like U2 dominating proceedings with a new release or tour like you have right now. By then, there will be far more micro-bands in circulation than anyone can even count, and it will be harder and harder for new mega-acts to emerge.

These micro-bands will flourish to a certain extent, but the ability to translate to a bigger audience as was once the norm may be beyond them.

Right now, it takes huge marketing and promotional muscle to turn an act from a minor buzz into mainstream stars. Readers of and writers at The Ticket may have been smitten by Arcade Fire's Funeral. But that album still remains something of a niche product in the sales race, despite the fact that the band and the labels who have released Funeral have done extremely well out of it.

In 2036, the investment to turn a Funeral into an All You Can't Leave Behind in sales terms may be no longer available to acts. The major labels will simply be catalogue pimps, re-releasing music by The Corrs and Celine Dion on whatever format is then in vogue. Their overheards will be lower and the dividend to shareholders higher.

These mega-labels may sign one or two acts every year or compete with others for catalogues, but they will no longer be signing bands with a view to developing the new U2 or Led Zeppelin. Why bother? They already own the originals, so they'll keep flogging them in any way they can. After all, the tribute bands playing at the Budweiser Olympia or the Vodafone Village will be doing all the live promotion necessary.