Although to be fair, I do feel angry when people win the lottery, etc etc etc. And its the same anger I feel about this. Its because I care about artistic integrity, I really do. And on top of that, for being a subject that she's really passionate about- one that's actually kind of important -she really gives a shallow delivery and brings nothing new to the table. So its like... in addition to just kind of getting an unfair flow of cash and doing nothing productive with it, she also poorly delivers about a social issue that deserves better discussion than her sensationalist style.

I can see a difference in that with a lottery, everyone knows it's a game of luck. With making lots of money, it's often not seen as that - imagine if lottery winners were congratulated for their skill, or if everyone was discussing the method they used to choose their numbers, or if the media were following what their next lottery entry was going to be, or they were praised because no one else had had the idea of playing the lottery before... (Not that I think getting rich is always purely luck, but there are a lot of unclear factors that make one person rise above all the others.)

This issue is something that comes up every so often - from successful indie games (as discussed http://www.gamedev.net/topic/639806-what-makes-these-games-so-successful/ ), to Million Dollar Homepage and 50 Shades of Grey. Which is really just an extension of the situation of people getting famous/rich that we've had for decades.

The Internet was often assumed it would be some kind of great equaliser, but in reality we still see the same kind of thing as before, in some cases exaggerated far more so (the difference is more that we have fewer "gatekeepers", such as companies deciding who to publish).

The amusing thing here though is that, I imagine, much of her publicity came from people criticising it. Even bad publicity can be good...

I'm sorry if this comes across as aggressive, but your post really pisses me off so I may sound a bit irrational here. Here's the problem with your argument: she wasn't paid to do work, or because she sold a product. She basically just talked about something she wanted to do to the internet and people gave her money. That's fine and dandy if those people want to do that. But when she turns around with that money and puts out a lackluster video with shallow research, uninteresting delivery, a tired out message, six months after she announced the project... YEAH. She could have probably done this for free. Probably most of the money got put into the special effects budget and legal stuff concerning the images and video she showed. Probably so she can turn around and sell this on DVD.

Be aware that I am neither supporting nor criticising her video, nor making a judgement on how well she has used the money.

I was criticising the attitude that people should do things for free, or the idea that charging money to do something makes it less valuable. Leaving important works to those who have enough free time and contacts to be able to do everything for free rules out lots of important endeavours.

they just do it because it's a hobby turned career for them and people eat it up AFTER they've done the actual work.

If you only ever get paid after you've done the work, then only people in a privileged enough position in the first place will ever be able to do that work. Consider that.

So, I think technically its fair use but I could see her using the money to cover her ass if, say, she ever wanted to sell DVDs of it. Or otherwise directly monetize it.

And even then, she's probably safe anyway. Commercializing something does not necessarily exclude fair use, funny as it is. One could certainly consider this video as "criticism, comment" (and possibly even some form of "education") whether it's on Youtube or sold on DVD. Insofar, as long as she properly quotes sources and doesn't lend to confusion of authorship, that's no issue (all TV stations and newspapers would be bankrupt if you weren't allowed to cite/quote -- and they do make money.).

The only real dangers I see are the "substantiality" and "market effect" clauses (you're for example not allowed to make a video that starts with you saying "I really like this movie..." followed by 2 hours of "The Matrix"), but since she shows a multitude of small clips mostly in the background, I guess she's relatively safe on "substantiality".

As for "market effect", as long as the overall message isn't "Super Mario sux ass" or "Let's all boycot sexist Nintendo", I guess the market effect clause is neglegible. If anything, one could argue, it directs attention to the product, as in "All press is good, there exists no negative press except no press at all".

are you angry when millions of people rush out to buy the latest "Call of Honor: Medal of Duty", giving the publisher 100x their expenses while receiving the same poor quality turd they're happy to swollow every year?

Yes!