Last time we counted our posterity was in 1996, at which time we had something like three sons and some girls we're told were genetically similar to us. It was a wonderful time – we played ball with the boys, we went to movies with the boys, and we lit sparklers every single night all summer long. With the boys.

Then in 2005 our daughters, whom we've always loved as if they were our own, got like $41,000 from a lawsuit stemming from a "foster home" incident. We were mortified to learn of their troubles, and want them to know we always stood by them even when they grew up in a different state. We also want them to know we like red ferraris and weekly cash gifts.

Now we're not saying Jamie Spears' parenting skills are anything like our own – but right now he's getting paid to be Brit-Brit's Daddy. In cash. Because the courts demanded it.

Justice is sweet. 

hecklerspray has always loved Britney Spears. All we've ever wanted is to see her safe and sound resting securely until mental stability is a state she's once again accustomed to. We're filing adoption papers so we can steward over her with the court's blessing. And if said stewardship comes with a $2,500 weekly bonus, well, that's not why we're doing it. Now pardon us while we thumb through the new-car section of our phone book.

Jamie Spears, the man who always names all of his pregnant children after himself, is getting paid $2,500 per week to control Britney's life for the next few months. It's a sweet gig for which his resume was submitted vaginally just over two and a half decades ago. People magazine has the details:

"When his temporary co-conservatorship over his daughter Britney Spears was extended until July 31, Jamie Spears was also granted new powers, court documents from yesterday's hearing show. In addition to a $58,800 payment to the conservatorship for attorney fees and other costs, Jamie was given weekly payments of $2,500 and the authority to tap his daughter's funds to lease a car for her security team."

Now if Spears senior starts getting out of limos with his southern lady parts hanging out, and if he shaves his head, and if he suddenly gives birth to Sean and Jayden, we'll know it was the money what did it.

It's always the money what did it.

Read More:

Spears Father Retains Star's Assets – The Press Association

When Radiohead announced that fans could pay whatever they wanted for new album In Rainbows, it was meant to show that a band could trust its fans to acknowledge all the work that goes into an album's creation and pay accordingly.

Yeah, hasn't happened. Of all the people who downloaded In Rainbows last month, less than half of them actually paid anything at all for it, it's been revealed. According to researchers ComScore, only about 40% of people who downloaded In Rainbows by Radiohead decided that paying money to hear it was a good idea, spending an average sum of just $2.26 for it. Although this could be seen as a disastrous embarrassment for Radiohead, the band shouldn't get too downhearted – after all, most bands would struggle to charge $2.26 for a bunch of songs that sound like a bunch of Broken Social Scene B-sides in the first place.

For a band whose music sounds like a ghost trying to fix a broken robot, Radiohead really captured the public's imagination with its new album In Rainbows. After the thrill of releasing traditionally-distributed albums made entirely out of nothing but whirs and clicks wore off, Radiohead announced that it would instead release an album of actual songs on the internet, letting fans pay whatever they wanted for it.

The idea caught on fast. With the music industry in crisis, perhaps this was really the future – trusting fans to pay a reasonable amount of money for the fruits of a tortuous 20-month recording process. After all, everyone who likes Radiohead must be sensible and intelligent, otherwise they'd never be able to decode Thom Yorke's witchy yowl, so they'd stump up an appropriate wedge, surely.

The signs looked good at first – on the first day of release so many people downloaded In Rainbows that Radiohead's website broke and the feeling that this was the future of music was such that even dear old Cliff Richard adopted the Radiohead model. Looking back, all the crowing might have been a little bit premature, because it turns out that no bugger actually paid for the sodding thing.

ComScore revealed yesterday that, of the 1.2 million people who visited Radiohead's website since In Rainbows was made available to download, 62% of customers chose not to pay a penny for it, with the majority of the others only spending a minimal amount. In fact, accounting for both paid and unpaid downloads, Radiohead only made $2.26 for each copy of In Rainbows downloaded. In perspective, for the latest album by one of the world's biggest bands, people paid less than half of what Amazon is currently charging for a bargain-bin collection of choral Elvis Presley arrangements. But who doesn't love Elvis, huh?

Of course, you could argue that that's still $2,712,000 that Radiohead earnt from In Rainbows – and it all belongs to the band now that none of it goes to a record label – plus the band has made double that from pre-orders of the physical deluxe In Rainbows box-set, and In Rainbows is still to be released traditionally on CD, and Radiohead is likely to overcharge for concert tickets because of the innovative way it all but gave the album away. So the band hasn't done badly out of this.

It hasn't done badly, but it could have been an awful lot better, too – something that Radiohead plans to explore on its next album, How Are We Supposed To Buy That Fleet Of Diamond-Studded Speedboats Now, You Tossers.