Vanced Discontinuation

https://telegra.ph/Vanced-Discontinuation-03-19

by chagaif • 4 years ago

200 181 4 years ago

H8crilA• 4 years ago

The main source of income for youtube isn't ads. YouTube revolves around the merchandise and YouTube Premium subscriptions.

Lol. You can open Alphabet's 10-Q or 10-K and find out in a matter of seconds how untrue this is. Reminds me of the famous "Senator, we run ads <suppressed smile>" by Zuckerberg.

LewisVerstappen• 4 years ago

Reminds me of the famous "Senator, we run ads <suppressed smile>" by Zuckerberg.

Why? Zuckerberg wasn’t lying when he said Facebook makes their money from ads though.

HWR_14• 4 years ago

Indeed. IIRC, there were quite a few issues with his testimony obfuscating things. But he was pretty blunt about the business model. I thought the point of the clip was how out of touch the Senator asking was.

yunohn• 4 years ago

Yes, and H8crilA is saying YouTube also exists off ads revenue.

paxys• 4 years ago

Exactly. Zuckerberg wasn't even smiling when he said that, just incredulous that the US Senator who has summoned him to DC and is questioning him in front of millions of Americans doesn't know the first thing about what he is saying.

ZephyrBlu3• 4 years ago

They're referring to creators, not the platform. For creators it's absolutely true that merch brings in more revenue than ads, and I assume by premium subscriptions they mean channel membership.

I also assume English isn't the author's native language because there are some small grammatical and structural quirks like this platform vs creators thing. It's very readable though!

rryan2• 4 years ago

That makes no sense. Why is "YouTube Premium" capitalized?

RealityVoid• 4 years ago

You seem to ignore that the incredibly annoying ads are a prime reason people even buy premium in the first place.

bhaak• 4 years ago

The vanced team will "NEVER" make its source code public. Making the source code available on the internet can cause serious complications for us.

How would Google have acted if the source code was open source from the beginning?

Shared404• 4 years ago

My understanding is that Vanced was a patching of the official Youtube App, so already on somewhat shaky ground.

If Vanced took advantage of vulnerabilities in the Youtube App, or the source code could point to them, I could see Google reacting poorly to start out with - though afaik (not a lawyer, also not your lawyer) it's legal to distribute source for a patch for a proprietary program and instructions to apply it.

kadoban2• 4 years ago

I'm not a lawyer either, but: I'd worry that something Vanced was doing was technically in violation of DMCA, or at least could be argued to be in violation by someone with several billion dollars.

Anunayj• 4 years ago

IANAL, but I do not think patching a app violates any copyright at all, as long as you distribute the patches and download the app clientside. A very good example of this would be Bukkit (which itself is licensed under GPL) , which patches Minecraft Server JARs to provide a stable modding API to work it.

Infact the story itself has quite a interesting turn, so it turned out sometime later Mojang decided to "buy" Bukkit. (aka pay it's lead developers to give up their copyright), and what they (incorrectly) supposed from this was, that they would be allowed to distribute direct bukkit binaries (afterall they own minecraft), that was until one of the Bukkit contributers decided to DMCA the website.

I'm unsure what the current situation around this is, and how they sorted everything out in the end.

[1] https://twitter.com/jeb_/status/502380018216206336

endisneigh• 4 years ago

Some users believe that Google had sent cease & desist letter because the Vanced Team had posted NFT to earn money out of the vanced project. The Vanced NFT was never sold in the end. Besides, it was done as a joke and nothing more.

Says everything you need to know about NFTs

simulate-me• 4 years ago

What does this say about NFTs exactly?

klodolph• 4 years ago

That they’re schemes to make money that don’t withstand scrutiny or solve problems better than the alternatives.

IMTDb• 4 years ago

What does this say about NFTs exactly?

"it was done as a joke and nothing more." can pretty much describe NFTs

mkdirp2• 4 years ago

All stuff they posted prior to shutting down pointed to this NFT not being a joke to be honest. Seems like their claim that it was a joke is more about damage control than it being true.

lucb1e3• 4 years ago

I didn't use vanced before since the open source newpipe fulfilled all my needs, so this is the first I heard of vanced doing some cryptobro token stuff.

So without knowing more than just what is written in the OP: when I read in the same paragraph that "we didn't get to the point of selling" and "besides, it's just a prank bro"... yeah, clearly. Could be true, I suppose it doesn't really matter now, but I'm not convinced. I also read it as trying to save some reputation.

charcircuit3• 4 years ago

The vanced team will "NEVER" make its source code public. Making the source code available on the internet can cause serious complications for us.

There shouldn't be issues as long as you are sharing them as patches unless they didn't own the rights to the code they added.

kayson• 4 years ago

I'm really sad I missed the boat on Vanced by one day. I'd heard about it for a long time and randomly decided to finally start using it only to find all the download links had been removed the day before. Youtube ads have become horrendously annoying.

Does anyone know if the apks can be found on any archive site?

silentsea90• 4 years ago

Do you subscribe to anything on the internet? Perhaps Spotify, your internet connection, Netflix? Have you considered their premium offering, or do you think YT should be free and without ads?

DocG2• 4 years ago

How does your comment help?

YT premium still doesn't give all the Vance's features. I can buy premium and still use Vanced for features that YouTube does not offer.

Or maybe I don't support YouTube adding ads to unmonetized videos? Or is it my way to fight back, how they roll over small creators to trolls?

mindslight• 4 years ago

Personally, I avoid paying for things that could instead be provided by some appropriate software, as doing so encourages further proprietaryism. This includes services that corral communication into centralized silos. When proprietary middlemen attempt to force their desired paradigms onto us, the answer isn't to just give in and pay their Danegeld. Rather the solution is to build better software and communication infrastructure that won't get shut down by legal nastygrams.

MMS212• 4 years ago

Yes.

Sent from a stolen laptop on my neighbors Wi-Fi

coolso• 4 years ago

I’m sure he’s considered it, but like many of us here, he refuses to voluntarily give Google a dime, for reasons that are obvious to most.

Nextgrid8• 4 years ago

Most other services I subscribe to don't have the incentive and/or resources to be creepy and stalk me everywhere. They're happy to take my money, give me the product/service and leave it at that.

YouTube's parent company both has the incentive and the resources. Giving them your real personal info (as required for payment processing) and some money on a silver platter is not an idea I'm comfortable with.

willcipriano• 4 years ago

Try NewPipe

sonicggg• 4 years ago

NewPipe is garbage. Vanced has that original YouTube app feel, but works even better.

jtdressel• 4 years ago

I think this is it: https://apkpure.com/youtube-vanced/com.vanced.android.youtub...

I have not done any level of verification.

mkdirp2• 4 years ago

There are archives of them including checksums to ensure the files are not tampered with. I'd rather not post it here as I don't think it's allowed here, but the Vanced subreddit will have quite links.

blamazon3• 4 years ago

YouTube premium is 12 dollars a month.

For me, this is worth it to remove ads and add background play and picture-in-picture.

dannyw2• 4 years ago

If you use an Indian VPN to subscribe, you can get it for about 2 usd a month.

akmarinov• 4 years ago

There are some people going around selling a year worth of YT Premium for $20, it works pretty well.

You can find them on Reddit.

Asooka• 4 years ago

That's way too much, they're not making 12 dollars per month from me seeing the same 3 ads over and over.

TheMode• 4 years ago

I personally stopped my subscription after their decision to remove the dislike counter. Ultimately does not change anything for them, but I just couldn't justify it.

causality03• 4 years ago

That's a valid argument, but Vanced also had sponsorblock which auto-skipped all those tedious intros, "please install this adware mobile game and smash that subscribe button" and boring outros.

I will be very eagerly monitoring the situation with hope a successor will arise.

Nextgrid8• 4 years ago

Privacy is the main problem - though I'm not sure how Vanced fared on that front (did their modifications also neuter any spyware and malicious features from the app?).

I do not have a Google account and do not want one - Google has no place in my life other than being a malicious website I sometimes have to visit when other search engines fail.

I want to support creators and do the right thing, but this means I'd have to let an undesirable creep into my private life and provide them with valid personal details so that they can process the payment. That's not something I want to do, so alternative clients (Invidious in my case) and ad-blockers are the way to go.

jonathanlydall• 4 years ago

YouTube Premium includes a music streaming subscription, something I already have with someone else, so something I’m not looking to pay for twice just to not see adverts on YouTube.

Because I don’t watch YouTube much, I would be willing to pay maybe $2-3 per month to get of rid of adverts. I heard they are in some countries exploring such an option, hopefully they roll it out to my country eventually.

In the meantime I avoid the YouTube tvOS and iOS apps due to the obscene amount of adverts. The iOS app is particularly obnoxious as it prompts for a free premium trial every time I open it.

alickz• 4 years ago

I'd pay for Youtube Premium if they'd let me use SponsorBlock with their Android app.

kadoban2• 4 years ago

Youtube in Firefox with ublock origin has no ads. Youtube premium exists as well.

denkmoon• 4 years ago

I mean, you could just pay to remove the ads...

MMS212• 4 years ago

That doesn't return dislikes or skip over sponsored segments.

charcircuit3• 4 years ago

Follow this guide: https://old.reddit.com/r/Vanced/comments/tdzmgw/other_how_to...

In the future the ReVanced project will success it.

causality03• 4 years ago

Where are you getting info about "ReVanced"?

neurostimulant2• 4 years ago

Seems legit but I haven't checked: https://www.apkmirror.com/apk/team-vanced/

You'll need to install both youtube vanced and vanced microg in order to make google login within vanced works.

xputer• 4 years ago

There is PureTuber as well. Haven't tried it yet, but from what I read it has a similar experience to Vanced.

squarefoot• 4 years ago

Vanced is discontinued for "legal reasons" as vanced was infringing the logo and branding of the original YouTube app as the logo resembles the original logo in a similar way and was used without taking prior permission from Google for using the branding.

Huh?!? That was the only reason behind the C&D letter and they killed the product when a simple logo redesign could have solved the issue? Or the C&D letter would have voided any attempt to do that? Something doesn't add up.

toxicFork• 4 years ago

NDA?

3np3• 4 years ago

Why would they sign one?

A gag-order does not seem super likely, but more-so than an NDA.

stjohnswarts2• 4 years ago

More likely just legal threats to say "this is the opening shot, but these are the cruise missiles we have aimed at your bank account and life in general". Lawyers don't care, they will destroy you and your loved ones (edit: obviously not physically but legally and financially) and sleep like a baby at night.

DocG2• 4 years ago

Seems legit. I think they think it's a warning shot, they are now on Google's list. This letter is a "nice" way of saying - guys well you are now on our list and shut down or well force you to shut down.

Smart play, rather end on a high note, without months and months of C&Do letters and axety and stress. Learn and move on.

netsharc• 4 years ago

It could be that Google says they're infringing on the logo design, and Google demanded that they stop distributing the app due to this.

"We were also asked to remove all links for the distribution of any vanced apps that led to the decision of discontinuation."

Whatever the second half of that sentence may mean in plain English, the whole article is hard to parse.

TrianguloY• 4 years ago

They did tried to change the logo a few days before all this, at least on Discord.

However as others point here the "You are using our logo without our permission" is just a valid reason to shut down an app, and happens more often that it should.

saurik3• 4 years ago

I'm the developer of Cydia, an alternative to the App Store for jailbroken iOS devices, a software ecosystem which was filled with both modifications to existing clients and complete re-implementations of clients, and this is definitely the #1 mistake that new developers would make (much to my annoyance, as it just seems so OBVIOUS of a thing to not do, but people really are idiots): you need to be extremely careful with trademarks and logos--only ever talking about a client "for" some other service as opposed to using that service's name as a modifier on your app (so, "YouTube Vanced" is definitely never OK and a dumb decision when you could say "Vanced for YouTube" or even be extremely safe and just stick with "Vanced", leaving any mention of "YouTube" to your descriptions), etc.--lest you get wrecked. And yet, somehow, you see it happen time and time again as people just can't help themselves when it comes to using other peoples' trademarks for their clients.

And yes: it is an incredibly simple thing to avoid, and yet it is also a deceptively difficult thing to fix and cleanly walk away from later when the other party actively wants you to not exist as you are often now stuck in a really shitty position with respect to the hole you have already dug yourself into and the legal fees you are potentially going to lose just trying to defend yourself going forward. Hell: someone I don't like from the "extended" Cydia ecosystem (if nothing else: they are the kind of person who thinks they are above trademarks) once even just hinted on Twitter at building a product with the name "Snapchat" in it (which I obviously would never have sold as I was really careful about this sort of stuff) and their lawyers started coming after me with a cease and desist for something I wasn't even going to do, costing me thousands of dollars to deal with (as their lawyer knew to directly contact my lawyer, making it harder for me to avoid any costs).

oauea• 4 years ago

Copyright and trademark law isn't taught in most schools. Why would you expect most people to know how to avoid the traps laid out by the corporations?

htrp• 4 years ago

their lawyers started coming after me with a cease and desist for something I wasn't even going to do, costing me thousands of dollars to deal with (as their lawyer knew to directly contact my lawyer, making it harder for me to avoid any costs).

Why would Snapchat's lawyers go directly to your lawyers on this one? And how would that cost you legal fees. Wouldn't your lawyers need your sign-off to bill on any projects that they are to undertake?

smoldesu• 4 years ago

A little off-topic, but it's really cool to see that you're still floating around here. One of my first "hacker" moments was Jailbreaking a used first-gen iPod I bought off Craigslist in 5th grade. I remember seeing your name on a number of things, and people always mentioned you on forums/IRC when I had questions. Never got around to saying hello, but I suppose it's better late than never to say 'thank you' for expanding my young mind and really shoving me head-first into the world of futzing with locked-down electronics!

8note3• 4 years ago

As a consumer, I'd only think of them as being Vanced, and also mostly forget their name

overlordalex• 4 years ago

And yet, somehow, you see it happen time and time again as people just can't help themselves when it comes to using other peoples' trademarks for their clients.

This is exactly what happened with "Reddit is fun" which had to rebrand as "RiF" but quickly changed again to "RiF is fun for Reddit" which is a rather clunky name but seems to meet the criteria of having enough standoff to the original

jacquesm• 4 years ago

That lawyer should have notified you first, then you could have passed them on to your lawyer. These arrangements are not a blanket thing, they are typically on a per-case basis. And your lawyer likely should have contacted you to get your agreement that they were going to represent you in this matter. Which likely they did only you didn't realize that that was what was happening. If my lawyer started to invoice me for a matter that I did not refer to them I would tell them to go pound sand, lawyers or not. So beware of accidentally agreeing that they could represent you if they notified you.

plibither8• 4 years ago

Welp. Makes me wonder whether Hacker News or @dang will send a C&D for naming my browser extension "Refined Hacker News" :P. /s

2Gkashmiri• 4 years ago

i would suggest you to discuss your arrangement with your lawyer (i am one and i do not do any work on behalf of the client without their approval. not even agreeing to discuss matter with a third party, let the client confirm if they want me to talk)

that said, i was exposed to cydia back in 2008 with the original iphone and used that phone till around 2013 i guess. best time of my life. thank you for your work. the "Walled garden" that apple created was made more open because of your work. thank you again

Zak• 4 years ago

Vanced is a modified version of the official Youtube app. I'm not a lawyer, but I'm pretty sure it's a copyright violation to distribute modified versions of someone else's software without their permission.

What's probably not illegal to distribute is the source code for the tools they used to generate those modified Youtube apps, so I'm a bit surprised by how adamantly they're refusing to do so in this post.

jeroenhd• 4 years ago

The author probably knows that Google could sue the ever living hell out of them for copyright and trademark violations, or maybe even go so far as to try to extract "lost revenue" from skipped ads by arguing that the trademark violation might have tricked people into thinking the app was official and therefore unknowingly deprived Google of ads.

I'm guessing the C&D was followed by a "we won't sue you if you do the following" proposal, which includes not releasing the source code for their tweaks.

ipaddr• 4 years ago

That's for the lawyers. The source will be sold and resurface somewhere.

kmeisthax• 4 years ago

The source code itself is probably also an infringing derivative work of YouTube's Android app.

izacus3• 4 years ago

Hmm, aren't tools that circumvent DRM and copyright protections also illegal under DMCA? Because Vanced source would certanly wall under that.

ntauthority2• 4 years ago

There's what I consider the 'hierarchy of legal arguments' when it comes to patched software distribution:

1. Trademark infringement. Easy to prove even in a court, often can get an injunction approved with no further effort.

2. Copyright infringement. Requires some effort to convince a judge that, yes, this is your content, code, or art, and that they did indeed copy and redistribute it, which would cost a few hours of legal professionals' time to draft up in layman's terms, and lead to a few dozens of pages in a court filing. Easier for visual stuff (such as images) than, say, decompiled code, especially as with decompiled code you may even 'accidentally' be violating the patched app's authors' copyright.

3. Anti-circumvention. This is a bit more of a stretch, but if someone doesn't want (or can't afford) a defense, it's easy to spin something in this way. For YT, since there's some obfuscation applied (see the YTDL takedown attempt), one could also easily argue this. Similarly, one could also argue the same if, for example, a video game modification 'works with pirated copies'.

4. 'The far stretch', such as 'runtime patches make a derivative work in memory', some antitrust violations ('their free patches are devaluing our paid subscriptions/microtransactions'), and other 'less' gray-area stuff.

5. Outright challenging the legality of specific types of reverse engineering. This one is tough as it may go the wrong way as well, and this could attract the attention of big financial sponsors (e.g. the EFF) to steer this into 'dangerous precedent'.

Now, this case is of course just referring to a C&D, but a lot of companies only send/distribute C&D letters once they also have a court filing for e.g. an injunction ready to go in parallel, for example if the C&D is explicitly refused.

Even if that's not the case, refusing it may just as well lead to a court case in a few months, based on another 'technicality' somewhere in this hierarchy.

(statement of authority: I've dealt with numerous of these cases in the video game industry, some of them being the accused myself, sometimes involving others telling me their experiences and/or asking for advice other than 'get a lawyer')

stjohnswarts2• 4 years ago

It seems unlikely to me as well. There has to be something more to it than that. Maybe they were threatened to be taken to court anyway if they said anything else about the cease and desist letter.

Aaargh20318• 4 years ago

Vanced is discontinued for "legal reasons" as vanced was infringing the logo and branding of the original YouTube app as the logo resembles the original logo in a similar way and was used without taking prior permission from Google for using the branding

So if this is the actual reason, shutting down completely seems a bit of an overreaction. Why not just get a new logo and rebrand the app ?

that_guy_iain• 4 years ago

Because Google probably had more than just your logo looks like ours.

bradleybuda• 4 years ago

It’s a get-rich-quick scheme, not a get-rich-by-putting-in-a-little-bit-of-work-when-presented-with-adversity scheme.

derefr• 4 years ago

My impression is that they aren’t legally allowed to reuse any of the source code that was ever used in vanced.

But if they create a new thing as a new team and claim that it shares nothing with vanced; and, critically, they never release the source code from the original vanced (which presumably hasn’t been subpoenaed); then they can reuse the source code, because nobody will know the difference.

This, presumably, would be what they mean by “complications” if they release Vance’s code: it’ll retroactively prove that their new """unrelated""" project is actually related after all.

UncleMeat• 4 years ago

because nobody will know the difference

Bytecode inspection is a thing. It isn't too hard to know if two apks share a large amount of source.

markmark• 4 years ago

Yeah, they were illegally distributing Google's copyrighted source code this entire time. It's just easier to prove the trademark thing, so Google lead off with that.

R0b0t1• 4 years ago

But why? If the complaint is just about the logo this makes no sense.

jffry• 4 years ago

My take is that Google wanted Vanced dead. On top of trademark problems, if the app was a modified official client then copyright is also at issue. And there's always the CFAA hammer looming.

It wouldn't cost much, compared to litigation, for Google to send them a letter outlining these issues. It's possible they made Vanced an offer they couldn't refuse (i.e., shut down now and avoid litigation)

AniseAbyss• 4 years ago

As soon as Vanced gained too much fame it was a foregone conclusion that Google would kill them.

DonBarredora• 4 years ago

The vanced team will "NEVER" make its source code public. Making the source code available on the internet can cause serious complications for us.

What would those complicatiosn be?

post_break• 4 years ago

Someone else could make a better version of it. But if I had to guess, they are using some internal tools or hacks to make it work the way it does.

grishka2• 4 years ago

Top-secret internal tools like jadx, apktool, the Android SDK, and a text editor? This is all I used to build my patched version of Instagram.

WatchDog• 4 years ago

Isn't vanced just a patched version of the official app?

It's not mentioned in the article, but I imagine the copyright infringement, goes a lot further than simply infringing the trademarks and logos.

Presumably, they don't want to release the source code, because it would make it blatantly obvious.

shabier5• 4 years ago

Isn't vanced just a patched version of the official app?

I believe that it is. Although they don't have the source code, just the binary which they have modified in order to add features, see smali[0]. Other projects like the Google camera mod are using similar approaches to modify or port official apps

[0] https://stackoverflow.com/a/30837786

danuker• 4 years ago

This points to an NDA with Google.

lucb1e3• 4 years ago

I was wondering if one of the authors was a youtube employee and took code perhaps, but yours is the simpler explanation. Sounds logical to request this from Google's POV.

Ftuuky• 4 years ago

Time to move into NewPipe, I guess

the_common_man• 4 years ago

NFT being a joke is such a lie

manuelabeledo• 4 years ago

Isn’t it?

Outside its niche, where do you hear of NFT if it’s not to make fun of it?

meibo• 4 years ago

I believe the person you're replying to is referring to the vanced team claiming that their NFT offer was a joke, not the concept of NFTs.

jrm4• 4 years ago

Broadly, I think it would be a mistake to read this with the idea that you're going to get the truth out of it. This smells very much like CYA spin. Not mad at all of course, do what you gotta.

kebab4• 4 years ago

They're saying here that YouTube makes most of their money through merchandise, and not ads. Which just isn't true.

ethanpil• 4 years ago

Perhaps this was a Quash-then-Hire and while Vanced is gone the developers are now Googlers with some NDA agreement...

chagaif• 4 years ago

Here's a link to the post in the official Telegram channel it was posted in: https://t.me/Vanced/207

moneywoes2• 4 years ago

Dumb question, could they just not change the logo?

OmegaDungeon• 4 years ago

That's the reason this write up doesn't make any sense because they did do that, the old logo was just the YouTube logo with a gradient and a line, the new logo is much closer to NewPipe's and they dropped the YouTube from "YouTube Vanced"

Vespasian2• 4 years ago

Google probably said something like: "For now we ask you to not use our Logo and trademarks anymore and if you comply by shutting the project down, we are happy to leave it at that.

If however you decide to continue we will come after you for the numerous other issues this project has such as the fact that it is an unauthorized modification of our official youtube app, primarily used to deprive us and our partners of income.

It's your choice"

Google lined up their troops and fired a warning shot. Vanced recognized their unwinnable position and surrendered.

4oo42• 4 years ago

So they couldn't just redesign the logo/app to be dissimilar enough from YouTube?

I really want to know what these "complications" are, this is the sketchiest way I've seen someone refuse to open source something.

The vanced team will "NEVER" make its source code public. Making the source code available on the internet can cause serious complications for us.

neurostimulant2• 4 years ago

They basically decompiled youtube's apk, modify and and repackaging it as Vanced, so off course they can't release their "source code" because it's not theirs (except the modified parts).

4oo42• 4 years ago

Makes sense, that's basically asking for trouble.

rryan2• 4 years ago

The main source of income for youtube isn't ads. YouTube revolves around the merchandise and YouTube Premium subscriptions.
If you are talking about creators who are not earning money for using vanced, you should know they won't make millions out of those ads.

... right. Feel free to keep telling yourselves that.

kebab4• 4 years ago

Last I heard YouTube makes 20 billion in ad revenue, and creators get like 45% of that

loxias• 4 years ago

This part jumped out at me:

The vanced team will "NEVER" make its source code public. Making the source code available on the internet can cause serious complications for us.

???

Anyone have any idea (or even guesses) as to what that's about? Does the source contain a murder confession?

sodality2• 4 years ago

The trademark issue probably was resolved with "shut down and don't release source, and we won't sue you for your past violations"

jesprenj• 4 years ago

Either that, or they will continue with Vanced under another unrelated name, possibly with sponsors and monetized, and do not want any competition.

roastedpeacock3• 4 years ago

Not an attorney, but I suspect two mistakes the YouTube Vanced team did with the project is having "YouTube" in the name (Could be considered as a false association and trademark violation by Google or YouTube), and redistributing complete APKs that were modified YouTube APKs that would be under copyright.

I have not looked into the inner works of this, but on device patching of APK DEX classes from a set of patches is possible. Would not require root as long as it generates a patched APK and installs that using the standard PackageInstaller. That is probably a less risky proposition then distributing modified APKs themselves.

chakkepolja• 4 years ago

Wouldn't patches still be considered derivative work?

ntauthority2• 4 years ago

One could argue it does, one could also argue it does not. If a company wants a quick takedown of something it feels 'isn't right', having to rely on something like that with limited precedent (and a high risk of setting the wrong precedent for them) is a lot more difficult, so you're more likely to not get C&D'd/sued over such - but if you then do something that is easier to sue over, like trademark infringement or more outright copyright infringement, you're likely getting hit for one of those whenever a company 'disliking you' notices instead of them trying the 'hard' arguments.

franga20002• 4 years ago

Yeah binary patching would basically solve this issue and wouldn't be any more of a hassle for the user than vanced already was. For a similar example, see the way most alternative Minecraft servers download and patch official binaries on first start (they started doing this due to getting a bunch of DMCA takedowns a few years ago).

With a bit of effort, Vanced could even have the download page perform the patching and signing in JS/wasm, then include the privkey in the app so it could download, patch and sign new copies of itself on the fly.

Or, for better security, have a web service that signs any APK that matches a set of hashes. Clients patch the APK locally, then send it in to get signed - everyone now has byte-identical APKs, but Vanced severs never technically distributed Google's binaries.

shabier5• 4 years ago

That's a good approach, I like it a lot. Do know a project that has already applied that flow?

anyfactor• 4 years ago

"YouTube" in the name (Could be considered as a false association and trademark violation by Google or YouTube)

This is an important point. The "insert popular company name" for "insert industry" works great when you have just launched but this statement should be ditched as immediately as you get some traction.

I liked how, the Reddit client App "RIF" started. It was first "Reddit is fun", now it has become "RIF is fun".

No matter how benevolent you think the company you are referring to is, at the end everyone wants money, and the survival rate using this strategy is close to zero.

Without naming any names, I have seen certain startups claiming they are the Stackoverflow or Quora of "X" industry. The path Stackoverflow's ownership is taking, I bet they will start suing these companies for false representation sooner then we can imagine.

roastedpeacock3• 4 years ago

Makes me wonder how thin the lines are for the youtube-dl and yt-dlp projects at this point.

(The former fell victim to a DMCA takedown from RIAA asserting it was a 'circumvention' tool to download publicly accessible content that was copyrighted by the RIAA, but AFAIK Google did not comment on the incident.)

electroly• 4 years ago

The name on the Google Store is now "rif is fun for Reddit"; I'm not sure that's a great example. It still has Reddit in the name. If you do it right, it doesn't matter if the other party is upset about it. They can be upset all they want; you're allowed to do it to show interoperability.

cuteboy19• 4 years ago

The vanced team will "NEVER" make its source code public. Making the source code available on the internet can cause serious complications for us.

is it possible that Vanced actually contained Malware/Cryptominers and therefore they dont want to open source it?

chakintosh• 4 years ago

They killed it themselves when they tried to profit off of what is basically piracy with some NFT bullshit. That was utterly moronic.

JellyYelly• 4 years ago

You should read the article, it says they didn't even sell the NFT and wasn't part of the C&D.

shabier5• 4 years ago

Agreed. I think a smarter approach would've been to release the patches and other changes separately, and had the official YT app be patched locally. This, however, could probably not work on non-root devices.

asimpletune• 4 years ago

It sounds like they're making it really clear that they've "killed" the project, probably so they can just start another one that doesn't have the same issues. I wouldn't be surprised if they just form a new LLC, and transfer the old code as IP between the two, tweaking the offending assets and calling it a day.

stemc43• 4 years ago

that would be amazing. i really hope to not have to use firefox mobile with ublock.

Nextgrid8• 4 years ago

Check out Invidious.

Nextgrid8• 4 years ago

I don't understand why it has to be an LLC. They're doing that pisses off a major company & industry, relating to copyright & computers, in a country where copyright and computer-related laws are just as insane as the idea of doing this in the open.

If they want to continue this (which I'd argue is a bad idea given they've presumably been discovered), the way to do so is to operate entirely in the underground (using Tor or other anonymization systems) and host any required infrastructure in a country that doesn't care - Russia comes to mind, even more so given the recent events.

The mere fact that they received a C&D and it had leverage over them already suggests a massive failure. Why was there a place to send a C&D to begin with? The proper legal department contact for such a project is /dev/null, so something failed big time if that C&D found its way somewhere else.

kebab4• 4 years ago

Won't the APK just be released on one of the apk mirror sites? Isn't every version already hosted on these sites?

ryankrage77• 4 years ago

Yes, you can continue to use Vanced for now, if you already have a working APK or can procure one. But with no updates coming, it's only a matter of time before YouTube make breaking changes and it stops working. I would guess 6 months to a year, based on how often I've needed to update in the past.

Vanced Discontinuation

Related Stories