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

ReVanced

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

241–248 of 248 posts

Re: ReVanced

#241

Post by kaba0 »

2Gkashmiri wrote: post #239
judge2020 wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean the users using any ad blocking mechanism, including (re)vanced or simply ublock origin. YouTube isn't free for Google to host.

that is not same as profiteering. leeching maybe but "profiteering" is what brave does with replacing google ads with their own so that they show their ads and earn instead of google. that is not what anyone with ad block is doing.. nothing in life is free. everyone knows that. you and me know that. we use adblock regardless of that knowledge. how is this argument used against vanced now since we have accepted the ne…

Also, it’s not like youtube isn’t popular exactly due to the freely generated content on it, not in spite of their hosting costs.

Re: ReVanced

#242

Post by kaba0 »

daveloyall wrote: post #178
og_pixel wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know much about the topic so forgive my ignorance, but aren't Android apps written in Java/JVM language? Meaning decompilation should be really straightforward, I remember IntelliJ having a decompiler, many times I would accidental open a `class` file and it would suggest decompilation. This kind of code was still hard to read, but it was Java, not bytecode.

It's all relative, I'm sure, and I don't have any experience with decompilers other than this one: https://www.benf.org/other/cfr/ , but, if you look at the change log there you will see that "really straightforward" is an unfortunately optimistic outlook. :)

Nah, java can be decompiled really really well. To the point that basically every app uses obfuscation to make the resulting code harder to comprehend.

Re: ReVanced

#243

Post by throwaway684936 »

nonbirithm wrote: post #138

I have a feeling that any piece of closed-source software that becomes important enough will inevitably be reverse engineered by highly motivated people. This is doubly so for Vanced: The original team took pains to not release the source, but it merely took a few weeks for someone else to reverse engineer the reverse engineered codebase. I've worked on preserving a few games with decompilers long after the original…

There was literally no source code to release. YouTube Vance was a hex edited YouTube app binary.

Re: ReVanced

#244

Post by MMS21 »

izacus wrote: post #164
ChuckNorris89 wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Or you know, paying a few bucks for the music via Premium subscription. Or you know, not lecturing people off your high horse on giving their hard earned cash to your corporate overlords on top of their private data, and instead, letting them use the internet as they please. A few bucks here and a few bucks there adds up significantly for those not on Bay Area wages and getting hit by rampant inflation and energy pr…

That's some serious mental gymnastic you have going there just to avoid paying musicians a few bucks to listen to their music. Don't worry, pirates have gone through these mental gymnastics to feel better about their entitlement since the time Napster appeared. Still doesn't change the fact that the author of that post refuses to pay a shitty 12 bucks per months to get access to all the music he wants and pay both th…

Look up how much YouTube and Spotify pay musicians. I'm not sure how little the others pay in comparison but I assume their cut is the industry standard.

Paying £12 a month doesn't bring back dislikes, doesn't remove sponsored segments and doesn't improve the comment section that is ripe with bots.

>I wonder if you're so lenient when someone refuses to pay for your own companys services and just wants them for free.

I wouldn't make my own companies DRM so easily breakable, are Google too poor or something?

Re: ReVanced

#245

Post by mminer237 »

LosWochosWeek wrote: post #211
mminer237 wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Theoretically they could sue for trademark infringements, but: 1. ReVanced has a disclaimer that they're not affiliated, which helps make sure people aren't confused. 2. The Vanced people probably are glad someone's continuing their efforts after they're no longer able to. 3. Vanced has been discontinued and taken down, so it's no longer "used in commerce", so I think the common law trademark should cease to exist.

> sue for trademark infringements Yeah, maybe at the piracy trademark comission on pirate island... For obvious reasons Vanced had no trademark on anything and thus can't sue for trademark infringements. They could possibly sue for a copyright infringement, but for that they'd have to prove that they do in fact hold a copyright on whatever they're suing for. They'd have to prove that (whatever) indeed is either (a) a…

Most common law jurisdictions give trademarks as a matter of law just for using something in commerce. I think Vanced could have legitimately sued to stop another product called "Vanced" from using that name. What "obvious reason" would prevent them from having had a trademark?

Copyright infringement is a much stronger claim at this point if they were actually upset. Vanced obviously had original code, so to the extent ReVanced copies that without permission, it would be infringing.

Re: ReVanced

#246

Post by xanaxagoras »

LordDragonfang wrote: post #221
xanaxagoras wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Same. I was happy to pay for it a couple of years ago, but I recently cancelled a pretty long running premium subscription. If they're not outright removing videos from people I subscribe to, or outright removing people entirely, they're creating an atmosphere where those who remain rigorously self-censor to preserve their clout and income streams. Most of the content that's left is uninteresting because it's too ris…

I have plenty of very interesting stuff on my feed too. Even discussions of "controversial" topics. Other than bad-faith DMCA claims, I rarely see videos get taken down. Which leads me to wonder what type of content you're subscribing to. Most of the time when I see complaints of "censorship" or "controversial" topics, it's a dog whistle for a very specific kind of speech.

Sorry, what exactly are you insinuating?
Post reply on HN