...as opposed to the slightly "rewritten" version that's making the rounds on YouTube with someone else's logo on it.
In fairness, the other guy says he didn't know I would have a problem because I linked his video and didn't object. That's true-- I did link it and didn't object. But then, I didn't watch it, either. I just assumed he was doing his own thing and doing his own parody. I imagined he'd have had the same basic plot, but I didn't know he'd be lifting gags from DiT.
His intention, he says, was to "improve" and "complete" the video. Fine. I don't think he intended to steal it. He did give credit on his blog. Everyone should know that -- he did give credit on his blog. So it's not like he attempted theft.
He also sent it to me. Had I watched it, I could have alerted him I thought he was stealing without credit. But I didn't. That's my bad.
Still, if the video wasn't completely his, he owed a credit on the video itself, which is what many people wind up seeing.
Devil's Advocate is upset by this and says he meant no harm. I believe him. I'm just pissed off, but I accept his apology and his statement that he didn't mean to do wrong.