Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Vanced Discontinuation

telegra.ph

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 182 posts

Re: Vanced Discontinuation

#161

Post by jacquesm »

saurik wrote: post #54
squarefoot wrote: post #9

> 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…

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…

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.

Re: Vanced Discontinuation

#162

Post by Nextgrid »

namdnay wrote: post #148
spartanatreyu wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Dislikes are a pretty big feature. Also sponsorblock which is a must for some people. And picture-in-picture mode was great. I could watch the news while seeing how close an uber was to me without having to switch apps.

The sponsorblock seems pretty hypocritical: “I don’t want to give money to Google”… “Actually I don’t want to give money to creators either”

There's about 10 sponsors that go over and over in the channels I watch. I've seen them all and am a customer of one (from long ago - so nothing to do with their YT sponsorship) already. Nobody benefits from wasting my time showing me products/brands I already know about and already made a decision to buy or not to buy.

Re: Vanced Discontinuation

#163

Post by roastedpeacock »

anyfactor wrote: post #149
roastedpeacock wrote: post #115

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…

> "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 i…

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.)

Re: Vanced Discontinuation

#164

Post by detaro »

Nextgrid wrote: post #162
namdnay wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The sponsorblock seems pretty hypocritical: “I don’t want to give money to Google”… “Actually I don’t want to give money to creators either”

There's about 10 sponsors that go over and over in the channels I watch. I've seen them all and am a customer of one (from long ago - so nothing to do with their YT sponsorship) already. Nobody benefits from wasting my time showing me products/brands I already know about and already made a decision to buy or not to buy.

10 feels generous already.

Re: Vanced Discontinuation

#165

Post by Nextgrid »

kapildev wrote: post #83
grishka wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

1.How many hours did it take you to make the patched versions? 2. If you wanted to open source how you patched Instagram, how would you avoid lawsuit?

> If you wanted to open source how you patched Instagram, how would you avoid lawsuit?

Operate as if you were operating an underground drug marketplace or worse. If those technologies are able to thwart international law enforcement investigations, they're definitely strong enough to protect you from Facebook, not to mention that nobody will burn a zero-day to make Big Advertising happy when that zero-day can be better used to take down multimillion-dollar drug marketplaces (or worse).

If clearnet infrastructure is needed, put it in a country that gives the middle finger to the US. Being located there is also a huge bonus.

Alternatively, support copyright reforms and campaigns for privacy laws and their enforcement (which is currently lacking when it comes to the GDPR), so that such projects become unnecessary. In the meantime, don't use such services as much as possible.

Re: Vanced Discontinuation

#166

Post by ntauthority »

chakkepolja wrote: post #134
roastedpeacock wrote: post #115

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…

Wouldn't patches still be considered derivative work?

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.

Re: Vanced Discontinuation

#167

Post by ntauthority »

squarefoot wrote: post #9

> 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…

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')

Re: Vanced Discontinuation

#168

Post by jonathanlydall »

blamazon wrote: post #27
kayson wrote: post #7

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?

YouTube premium is 12 dollars a month. For me, this is worth it to remove ads and add background play and picture-in-picture.

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.

Re: Vanced Discontinuation

#169

Post by plibither8 »

saurik wrote: post #54
squarefoot wrote: post #9

> 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…

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…

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

Re: Vanced Discontinuation

#170

Post by 2Gkashmiri »

saurik wrote: post #54
squarefoot wrote: post #9

> 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…

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…

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

Post reply on HN