Re:StackOverflow
by SideburnsOfDoom on Saturday March 03, 2012 @10:16PM
(#3661832)
Falsely asserting copyright over bits of nature is OK for you then?
Re:StackOverflow
by icebraining on Sunday March 04, 2012 @08:21AM
(#3662687)
That was Rumblefish, not Youtube. Youtube was a victim of that, since they could've made more money by simply putting the ads and not sharing them with Rumblefish.
Re:StackOverflow
by SideburnsOfDoom on Sunday March 04, 2012 @01:42PM
(#3663483)
And we're back here: http://news.ycombinator.org/item?id=3659864
The only thing YT did was:
1. Add ads to a video hosted on their website
2. Take part of their ad income and give it to some company
I fail to see what exactly is evil about this.