I post a video on YouTube that is reposted in the Washington Post article via Michael Arrington / TechCrunch (almost a year later, after I write a bunch of news outlets). Before I did this, in 2005, 2006 and up to the date of this video, I called many, many law firms, attorneys, news agencies. No one wanted to take the case. Attorneys cited issues with impartiality, conflicts, etc. News agencies didn't write back. One Melbourne, Australia newspaper report wrote back, but then his boss told him not to print it. This sort of media blackout has happened even after the court case . . .
The topic of the video? The truth about YouTube and my role as its inventor / designer.
Now look, it's like one of my first videos. And hey - I'm like my prescription sunglasses. I'm also, inside, emotionally distraught over what to do. I mean, I was supposed to be Chad's silent partner, right? Now I have to trapes around with my claim! It's not that detailed, and it's apparently worth a parody to iJustine (the culture-jammer).