3 ms·
The comment from abstractbill reffered to Credit Suisse report which was about how the analysts have estimated Google's YouTube may lose $470M in 2009 and more
by volida 17y ago
The comment from abstractbill reffered to Credit Suisse report which was about how the analysts have estimated Google's YouTube may lose $470M in 2009 and more in the future.
By reffering to that report, it means his comment reffered to justin.tv costs and not on how they do it. Meaning that it's not so expensive according to their experience.
So, If I am going to reply to that comment it means I am going to talk about money. If I am going to talk about money I have every right to comment that they are profiting from content owned by someone else, WHICH has nothing to do if its legitimate or not.
My comment was as much relevant as the parent comment I replied to.
As much for justin.tv, they should better follow YouTube strategy to look broke, because if people who own that content know they are actually profitable someone will knock their door.
- dasil003 17y agoObviously it's very easy to play semantic logic games and come up with a free association that "proves" how on-topic you were. Here's the problem though: People here think justin.tv's bandwidth costs are relevant to the article. They don't think you political agenda about piracy is relevant.
- volida 17y agoHe didn't even gave a number about the costs. His comment was vaque and certainly not helpful, to me. So, explaining how my comment is relevant is semantic games? Whatever. My comment was just an indirect way through a joke (obviously provocative!), that expressed my opinion that they avoid telling they are profitable. And what "political agenda"? I didn't even expressed an opinion about piracy.