Hacker News Reader

Comment by mardifoufs | Hacker News Reader

Surprised it took so long to be honest. It was so good and unlike with other youtube alternative clients, you basically had almost 1:1 feature parity over the official app. Plus you had the option to disable almost all the recent UI changes easily and a sponsorblock integration.

It was much much more of a threat to Google than newpipe or less "normie" friendly alt clients, and it was getting too popular for it's own good. I'm wondering if the current Vance releases will keep working for a while, or if Google will try to target those too by breaking something in their backend.

View on HN

I'm surprised they did not have a plan for this. I thought Vanced would be based in a more "rebel" country like Russia, which is what Sci-Hub does. A Cease and Desist letter from Google would be meaningless there. Were they trying to pull this off in the USA, or other Western countries?

In the end, it's not like the devs made any money off of this. If they weren't already in a Russia-like country, then it's not exactly reasonable to relocate for your side project you offer for free.

They apparently minted Vanced NFTs, so making money off of Vanced, or at least the brand, was in the pipeline. Probably part of their downfall, too.

Same with the Discord music bots, all of them streamed audio from Youtube, but also had paid subscriptions for extra features.

The number of people willing to put many months work into a project like this, with substantial legal risk, and no possibility of getting paid money, is very small.

And of that small set of people, the number who already live in Russia is even lower...

Is it necessary to actually live in Russia, though? If I ever managed a project like Vanced, or any other initiative that might trip a big company such as Google, I would definitely seek hosting on a country like Russia or similar, even though I am not there. That, and trying to run everything anonymously, not with my Github username.

I'm curious, where exactly are the Cease and Desist letters delivered, when they get sent? To whatever contact email appears in the project's website, if any?

If you don't go through the hassles of anonymously signing up with the hoster in Russia, and also paying them anonymously, then there isn't much point in this. As soon as the server can be traced back to you (in a way that convinces the court) you're toast.

You reminded me of SciHub. What is the prospect of being able to avail it in the future, given the current situation in Russia?

I thought it was run by someone in Kazakhstan, so it's not wholly dependent on Russia.

The website itself used to be hosted in St. Petersburg, Russia at least. Not sure if that's the case anymore though.

An American Court even found Sci-Hub guilty, in a lawsuit brought up by Elsevier. But nobody could enforce it, so it was just pointless in the end.

Russia would not have been ideal just based on current events though...

Just a nitpick, the word it's does not imply possession, you are looking for 'its'. If you cannot substitute your usage of it's with 'it is' then it is the wrong one to use.

Thanks, I always get confused about this and believe it or not, I almost majored in English!

Even trying to query Google for the correct rules for it's/its doesn't turn up clear, concise information as you've achieved here in two sentences. Tragically, it's another case of SEO'd to death.

>Thanks, I always get confused about this and believe it or not, I almost majored in English!

Just remember this[0] and you should be set:

   It's is not, it isn't ain't, and it's it's, not its, 
   if you mean it is.

   If you don't, it's its. Then too, it's hers. It isn't 
   her's. It isn't our's either. It's ours, and likewise 
   yours and theirs.

-- Oxford University Press, "Edpress News"

[0] http://www.anvari.org/fortune/Miscellaneous_Collections/3944...

You know what they say. "It's what it's."

Here is the simple rule I use: in English, pronouns never use an apostrophe for the possessive.

He --> his

She --> her

They --> their

We --> our

I --> my

You --> your

It --> its

(Since someone will probably point this out, this is only true of the common pronouns. There are unusual pronouns that have apostrophes in their plurals. Eg: one --> one's. But nevertheless, the rule worked for me.)

> Even trying to query Google for the correct rules for it's/its doesn't turn up clear, concise information as you've achieved here in two sentences. Tragically, it's another case of SEO'd to death.

Use a dictionary or simply "define:"

This one is funny, maybe it helps:

https://theoatmeal.com/comics/apostrophe

it's is always short for it is.

As a native speaker I am well aware of that, but my typing muscle-memory is to some degree phonetic and on autopilot. So I sometimes reread what I wrote and discover I used e.g. 'two' instead of 'too'. It's/its is another common one.

> e.g. 'two' instead of 'too'

Oh wow. So, is this a common thing? When I type without thinking about it too much, and with my typing not being able to keep up with my brain, I tend to make those errors a lot. But I thought it was just me being dumb and not some general thing that happens to people.

*hand up here

I also sometimes put in an entirely incorrect word that is vaguely like the one I intended, with amalgamated hints of a neighbouring word, usually the one after. My brain just melds them together. Sometimes I read what I write and wonder how on Earth I can be such an idiot. Blessed are those times I catch such fuckwittery before posting.

- ed

the its/it's one is really annoying though, because of course I KNOW which is correct, but sometimes my finger just slips and sneaks in that apostrophe.

Funnily enough, I never have that issue with its/it's. Maybe because I’m not a native speaker and sometimes actually confuse them until my spellchecker reminds me ;)

And yeah, I sometimes created melded words as well. I wonder if there’s a name for our issue.

Rarely happens with its for me, but to/two/too, where/there and most annoyingly know/now are common ones.

English spelling is so fucked up. Possessives normally have the apostrophe, except the possessive pronouns. Just because.

See also "whose", because "who's" would have made too much sense I guess

Well, for a period of time in "middle english", it was spelled "whos". Ultimately derived from the genitive singular form of Old English hwa, "hwaes". In OE the -es suffix marked the genitive case in strong masculine nouns.

Eventually, the form become generalized across all nouns, with -es being applied to any noun to indicate possession. In most cases, the e is silent, and typographers began to either omit it (e.g. "whos") or, eventually, replaced it with an apostrophe, as the French did. And I suppose "whose" gained an e to indicate the "long vowel".

So we've ended up in a situation where we've basically lost noun declension and just attach suffixes to indicate plurality and possession (s and 's), but our pronouns have inherited their old declensions, without the -es/-'s suffix attached.

Granted, "its" is itself a semi-recent invention, as OE and middle english used "his" for both masculine and neuter third person singular genitive pronouns.

Possessives were the weird ones for me. I learned French at an early age, and you were just expected to learn the possessive pronouns. I did the same for English and while `it's` and `its` are similar, I've always considered the latter as its own thing, not something extrapolated from using the apostrophe as a possessive in English.

Except "one's", because every exception must have an exception (except the ones that don't). https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/one#Pronoun

wont-fix

wont-fix or won't-fix?

More like won\'t-fix

won''t fix is the connoisseur's choice.

shan't fix

Not "just because." Pronouns are still effectively declined.

Avoiding overlap with contractions isn't "just because".

And yet, english is quite happy to have an overlap between contraction and possessive for nouns, like "The doctor's waiting" vs "The doctor's waiting room"

True. It's stupid. :)

> unlike with other youtube alternative clients, you basically had almost 1:1 feature parity over the official app

I believe that's because unlike other alternative clients it is a modified version of the official app.

Breaking Vanced would also break YouTube (read: be unable to show ads) for people whose YouTube app is outdated.

how strict is youtube about maintaining backwards compatibility with outdated apps/versions of android? do they ever break compatibility?

They do, for instance here someone in 2017 tested that YouTube doesn’t work anymore on the original iPhone:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/bensin/2017/01/04/does-the-orig...

You do not need to frequently update the app to use youtube. For example with Vanced you may be using a several month old (modded) version of the app.

>do they ever break compatibility?

Yes, but I can't seem to easily find data on how often they do. I assume the "Currently installed versions will work just fine, until they become outdated in 2 years or so." is referring to how long they expect Google to keep compatibility with the latest version they used.

I was under the impression that Vanced was a cracked version of the official app. If that was the case then they deserve to be sued.

Well, they only deserve to be sued in your ethical system. To me, adding features that I can't even get if I pay isn't unethical, it's commendable.

Having come to adulthood in the 90s we all agreed that intellectual property was an oxymoron. It strikes me as odd people worry about the business model of mega corporations. Is it a sense of fairness? I have that instinct, but it doesn't apply to the likes of faang entities.

> Having come to adulthood in the 90s we all agreed that intellectual property was an oxymoron.

Having come to adulthood in the 90s, we absolutely did not all agree that.

I shouldn't try to speak for a whole generation, you are right. The background of being told it was legal to tape movies from tv and songs from the radio and trade them, as long as we didn't charge money, and then when the BBSs and then internet apeared being told those rules didn't apply anymore made many of us decide we were not responsible for technology invalidating the business model of corporations that shared so little with those whose creations they profited from. The legality of it meant little given its unenforceable nature.

Are you sure the people who disagree actually came to adulthood, or are they just adult-aged?

> Are you sure the people who disagree actually came to adulthood

More than I am of those who don't.

Yeah, I tend to agree. Those were different times, but computing was so much more interesting before everything was server-based subscriptions.

I read too many history books as a child. You learn that stealing is for lack of a better word "good".

Can you explain what you mean? I certainly wouldn't conflate copyright infringement with theft, that was propaganda by riaa and crew that was far more successful than I thought it would be when they started it. And depending on jurisdiction time-shifting (recording for later) isn't copyright infringement.

I'm a NewPipe user. I just think distributing a cracked version of somebody else's app calls for being sued.

Define "cracked" here. Is it a crack to add a feature to an app, for example?

Not grandparent poster, but I think the easiest definition would be:

"Removing the revenue stream for the original app author through modification or bypass."

Just because you're paying through advertising rather than cash doesn't make it any less of a crack or any less piracy.

I have bought memberships and superchats just fine through Vanced. YouTube has many different revenue streams.

If you then distribute it yourself, and originally it's not open source - yes.

I'm glad everyone doesn't think the way you do.

As long as we're throwing out anecdotes, I think anyone should be allowed to distribute content that was originally widely public and free.

And to alter it, sure.

replace youtube app with photoshop and you quickly realize that obviously it is illegal to modify and distribute. just because it is free to use doesn't mean intellectual property laws and licenses don't apply to it. you can argue that you think that intellectual property laws are stupid, but it doesn't make it any less illegal.

Obligatory “pirating Adobe software is always morally right”

Oh I don't disagree that Vanced was probably breaking a few copyright/IP laws so Google sending a C&D would be well within it's legal rights. But I'll just say that I enjoyed it while it lasted

Vanced was indeed a cracked version of official YouTube app.

If you buy a microwave and modify it, so it doesn't beep when it's done, and offer the modded version to your friends, do you deserve to be sued?

If you open up a shop where you do this (for free) I kind of think you ask to be sued. At any rate real world analoga often don't do the digital problems justice.

PS.: I imply that the "beep" is the source of revenue of course, which is a bit hidden in your analogon.

I have no idea why modding a microwave at a third-party service center would be illegal.

Yes, the rules for digital should be changed to be more alike the physical world, especially regarding ownership, resales, lending/borrowing and modification.

> I have no idea why modding a microwave at a third-party service center would be illegal.

If you remove the source of revenue for a given product without consent of the manufacturer/developer of that product and do this in a professional fashion, you are inflicting severe damage to that manufacturer/developer of a product.

The reason why digital problems are not easily transferred to the real world or back is in this example, that it costs the author of that mod zero time to do it for all people at once (developing time is fixed) and is accessible nearly instantly from everywhere. This is certainly not true for the microwave example.

edit: replace owner with manufacturer/developer (of that product)

So if a refill a printer cartridge (a revenue source), that's illegal?

Clearly it's not: https://www.extremetech.com/electronics/250050-supreme-court...

Why would the beep be a source of revenue?

Many features existed in Vanced before YouTube pulled a bait and switch on users and put existing functionality such as background playback behind a paywall. Also, they explicitly refused to add support for things such as downloading videos, even though that also has perfectly valid non-piracy use cases.

(The YouTube Premium download feature is bad anyway because videos downloaded that way are artificially DRM-protected when the original streams are DRM-free can be downloaded using something like yt-dlp.)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com