Vanced Discontinuation
telegra.ph
telegra.ph
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.
A gag-order does not seem super likely, but more-so than an NDA.
Smart play, rather end on a high note, without months and months of C&Do letters and axety and stress. Learn and move on.
"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.
Sure, but the past is hard to change. So, when a company is threatening to take legal action based on violations you have already committed unless you take a specified set of steps, merely stopping future violations without complying with the rest of their demands is risky.
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.
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).
2) Even if you don't agree with the concepts behind trademark law and you really believe that it is somehow a "trap" laid out by corporations, if you are going out of your way to go to war with a multi-billion dollar company your mental model shouldn't be "in for a penny, in for a pound" but more "choose your battles wisely": even ignoring the "you should have a lawyer" aspects of this, you should analyze each decision you make from the perspective of "can I foresee this making them extra-angry" and then decide "is this a core part of my crusade, or is this the kind of thing that is just going to make me more likely to end up failing?".
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?
Some call me crazy, but I always read what I'm signing before I sign, even if it's something coming from my SO to "just quickly sign", or if it's random paperwork that a teller or person just gives me while saying "sign here and here and we're all done" as if it's the most normal of things and not some super-scary contract where I could be selling my kidneys to a company.
saud justification seems much more important to the US government though
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
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
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.
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.
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')
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.
Why? Zuckerberg wasn’t lying when he said Facebook makes their money from ads though.
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!
I’ve heard that per viewer it brings in a lot more than the per viewer ads revenue from non-Premium viewers.
Not sure what the typical viewer numbers for each are; probably depends on the channel a lot.
Now I get angry every time I end up in YouTube via incognito when using social media and an ad plays.
Vanced was great for that. Also installed both apps on my mom's phone so she would not be irritated by ads. Being 87 she clicks on ads more often than I'd like. She even bought useless things from Facebook ads. She knows that I'll be angry so she lies about it. I have to protect her from the internet. She's a different generation. For instance I tell her about something being true and she won't believe me until she reads on the internet about it, because she grew up with "what you read is true". She's also exposed to lots of radical propaganda on Facebook. It's so bad that she quite often shares right wing videos and I have to step in and have discussions with her about what she's doing. But she isn't right wing at all. She hates all forms of nationalism or racism. Long story short. Adblocking isn't available for all platforms. But it's required for multiple reasons. Google knows and doesn't allow adblockers to be installed on mobile Chrome, because if they did their ad revenue would take a big hit.
It's just a relatively small part of overall pie because most viewers don't pay for it.
I once let the Premium lapsed and was bombarded by aggressive ads. Immediately turned Premium back on and it was almost, I kid you not, zen-like.
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 ?
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.
Bytecode inspection is a thing. It isn't too hard to know if two apks share a large amount of source.
Vanced itself is based on decompiled bytecode of original Youtube app. Another team can build on top of Vanced app just like Vanced devs built on top of Youtube app. So we wouldn't necessarily say whether it is using a hypothetical "source code" leaked by Vanced team or not by bytecode inspection (nor would it matter much).
Redistribution of copyright protected material requires authorization of the right holder. Code (or programs compiled from code), usually fall under this rule.
(In the US) hoster privilege usually allows them to not be liable unless they know about a specific infraction. In some jurisdictions some platforms (such as youtube) are required to monitor uploads proactively for known copyright violations.
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)
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.
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.
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.
(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.)
Says everything you need to know about NFTs
"it was done as a joke and nothing more." can pretty much describe NFTs
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.
> 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.
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.
> 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?
What would those complicatiosn be?
2. If you wanted to open source how you patched Instagram, how would you avoid lawsuit?
2. I don't keep my sources closed, I did publish them on xda-developers[1], but they've changed things around a lot since then and the links in my post broke. I need to reupload them somewhere. I avoid lawsuits by not being related to the US in any way whatsoever. And either way I don't think patching someone else's code is illegal, especially since no DRM is circumvented in the process. Making "get an official apk first" the first step, instead of distributing decompiled smali files, probably also helps.
[1] https://forum.xda-developers.com/t/app-mod-4-4-instagram-wit...
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.
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.
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
Does anyone know if the apks can be found on any archive site?
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?
The article mentions custom swipe controls, swipe controls, and "codec features" which I'm not familiar with.
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.
Whether the ads profit to Google or creators is irrelevant.
Really I think the sponsors know this, and put their money on targetting the market of people who are, for example, watching while eating.
Sent from a stolen laptop on my neighbors Wi-Fi
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.
I have not done any level of verification.
For me, this is worth it to remove ads and add background play and picture-in-picture.
You can find them on Reddit.
So subscribing via an Indian VPN can get you Premium for roughly $20 a year. Or get a Family plan for less than $30/year, and re-selling the extra slots on Reddit for about $20 a pop will net you ~$50 USD in profit.
I will be very eagerly monitoring the situation with hope a successor will arise.
This is how I skip any content that bores me, which is a category that does include mobile game sponsorships but goes beyond what sponsorblock offers.
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.
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.
In the future the ReVanced project will success it.
You'll need to install both youtube vanced and vanced microg in order to make google login within vanced works.
is it possible that Vanced actually contained Malware/Cryptominers and therefore they dont want to open source it?
How would Google have acted if the source code was open source from the beginning?
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.
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.
Outside its niche, where do you hear of NFT if it’s not to make fun of it?
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.
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.
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.