So it seems Radiohead has sponsored a contest that offers fans a chance to create a video for any song off In Rainbows.

For all those interested in winning, I’ve made the following tutorial:

Also, as a special bonus: How many Cracked.com Blog references are in this video?

Rock nerds everywhere were devastated today at the news that the long-rumored musical meeting between Paul “File Not Found” McCartney and Thom “the extra ‘h’ is for handsome” Yorke is not happening:

Paul McCartney was desperate to collaborate with Thom Yorke—but the Radiohead star turned him down. The former Beatle claims Yorke rejected an offer to work on an album with him—because he wants to solely concentrate on his band. McCartney says, “…I asked Thom to do a duet, but he said he couldn’t because he only felt happy working on his own and Radiohead’s material.”

… or so he says. Yorke’s refusal to cooperate with Operation Pauljuvenation could also be due to the following factors:

• McCartney’s insistence on working with archaic art form known as “songs”
• Lack of enthusiasm among target demographic for first single, “I Get By with a Little Help from My Genetically Modified Robotic Angst”
• Yorke insisted that consumers be able to download the album at a price of their own choosing, whereas McCartney preferred to release it on 8-track tape and Edison cylinder and sell it from the back of his van
• The banshee-like quality of Yorke’s anguished wailing was lost as sound waves were repeatedly absorbed by Paul’s wrinkles
• Scheduled recording date had to be scrapped after McCartney failed to show and was later discovered unconscious in a dumpster with a prosthetic leg-shaped indentation in his groin
• Fan excitement dropped sharply after it was determined that time travel technology is not yet ready to arrange a collaboration between 1968 McCartney and 1996 Yorke
• Audio testing revealed that the sound effects used on Radiohead’s last three albums could induce seizures, pacemaker failure, and incontinence in McCartney’s audience and McCartney

Although these two musical giants were unable to come to mutually agreeable terms at this time, plans are under way for a second, less publicized collaboration, between Thom Yorke’s singing garbage-man and Ringo.

Thanks guys, way to make me look like an asshole. In spite of my brash claims this week that Radiohead’s all-Internet marketing strategy would instantly end the music downloading controversy, a woman in Minnesota was ordered yesterday by a federal jury to pay $222,000 in damages for downloading copyrighted songs. How many songs? 24.

Yes, two dozen songs. That’s two albums (or five Pink Floyd albums). That comes to $9,250 dollars a song. There’s only one song worth that much cash: “All Night Long” by Lionel Ritchie.

So now this poor woman’s going to have to pay out the ass for whatever shitty Guns and Roses album she downloaded, and I think it’s a damn shame. And just so you know, record companies, action like this doesn’t help you in the least. Two hundred grand’s not going to cover the massive losses you’re taking while you drag your feet on your way to the 21st century, and in the meantime, you’re not helping your image much.

When a bunch of sexually harassed women band together to fight the sexist mining establishment, that’s a class-action lawsuit (and a fine film). But when Capitol Records, Sony, Arista Records, Interscope Records, UMG Records and Warner Brothers sue a single mother, that’s gang-raping your consumer.

And the RIAA must think that rape is okay as long as you just put the tip in, because they’ve recently begun sending hundreds of “discount settlement offers” to music pirates (ie, you) letting people pay a fee online to be taken off the “to sue” list. Is this okay now? Can giant companies literally blackmail us into giving them money because they’re losing profits and are too lazy or bloated to change their business paradigm? Would the barbarians have us pay for Josh Groban’s Christmas album? Can I possibly reference any more CRACKED blog posts in a single entry?

My only theory as to how they can get away with it is based on the following article excerpt:

Commenting on Gizmodo.com, a reader identifying himself as DirtyBacon said he was shocked but not surprised by the verdict.

I don’t care how reasoned your argument is, you’re not going to get much accomplished with the name DirtyBacon. Let’s step it up people. Unless you want to end up sporting a Time Warner Ankle Monitor (or TWAM) at all times, we need less PartyWang99’s and more Demosthenes18’s.

By Giving away their new album for free. That’s right: the latest release from that band with the lead singer that always sounds like he’s crying can be yours for the price of zero dollars (plus all applicable internet service charges). Their new album, IN RAINBOWS/ (or IN RAIN_BOWS or IN/RAINBOWS, depending on which of their pretentious arthouse spellings you want to buy into) will be available from their website starting October 10th on a donation basis. And yes, that donation can be anywhere from one cent to a generous three dollars. Hell, after Hail to the Thief, why not make it three fifty?

The big news here, in case you are terrible at drawing implications, is that Radiohead has effectively cut the record industry out of their record release. If this thing is a success, then we’re going to see a lot more big bands handling their own album releases, without the need for Warner Brothers to set up release galas, product placements and in-store appearances.

Where Lars Ulrich attempted to drive back the tide of inevitability, Radiohead has embraced it and harnessed it to begin to chip away at a largely unnecessary industry. Of course, not all bands can count on word of mouth sales based on reputation alone, so record industries willing to jam LFO down our throats will probably always be around, if only to push their small stable of first-release artists. But my guess is, most bands who make it big are either going to get on board with downloadable music and user-dictated pricing or be left in the dust.

Also, in a sadder implication, look for your local record stores to start going out of business even faster than before, as all physical media is abandoned in favor of code. The only other real downside to this whole deal is that if you pay ten bucks for the album and it turns out to suck, you can’t go back and pay less. What really excites me though is the thought that I can download the album for free, listen to it, then go back and donate what I think it’s worth. Refreshing idea, no? If we’d had technology like this a year ago, I wouldn’t still be regretting the $13.99 I spent on Sam’s Town.