6 ms·

Vanced was proprietary, it's too bad for users but I won't shed a tear for its developers and would actually advise against doing anything that keeps it living.

by rakoo 5y ago

Vanced was proprietary, it's too bad for users but I won't shed a tear for its developers and would actually advise against doing anything that keeps it living. The very fact that there is a need to get apk archives before the links die is an artifact of being proprietary and would not have been an issue with Libre Software. The only way that makes sense for all of us as a democratic society is to keep control, and this can only be achieved through Libre Software. The real move right now is not to keep existing Vanced content on life support, but to use Newpipe. If it doesn't support the right features, fork it. Enhance it. Use it as the Common it is

sreevisakh 5y ago
What is the reason for the cease and desist? Code license or use of content? If it's the latter, then NewPipe won't survive either. We really need an alternative to YouTube, not another frontend to this exploitative platform.
- EMIRELADERO 5y ago
  Vanced didn't publish the letter, but I'd argue it was a code copyright issue. They applied patches to the original YouTube APK and then distributed it. If they had only distributed the patch diffs themselves and a tool to patch the user-provided YouTube app file, this wouldn't have happened.
  - chii 5y ago
    The diff patches would be considered derivative, since you cannot make it without knowing the original.
    - EMIRELADERO 5y ago
      Courts have interpreted derivative works to be so when at least some parts of it contain the original copyrighted work. If that test fails, the whole derivative work argument is null and void.
      - kazinator 5y ago
        Do you know of a precedent? I wouldn't want to be the one with my neck on the line in court over this. Consider that .torrent files also don't have the content, yet torrent sites which serve them and provide tracking for torrent clients are having to play cat and mouse with copyright holders.
        bitwize 5y ago
        There have been court cases on this. In Galoob v. Nintendo, the Ninth Circuit ruled that Galoob did not infringe copyright by distributing a device (the Game Genie) that allowed users to modify copyrighted video games. The case established, at the time, that modifying a computer program or other copyrighted work for personal use was fair use. That said, so much of what we knew about copyright and software in the 90s has been overturned by subsequent rulings or even statutes (like the DMCA) that if you wish to avoid being burned by copyright suits, you must retain an attorney knowledgeable in this area of law. (Which is true in any case.) As an example, look-and-feel copyrights are back on the table thanks to The Tetris Company LLC.
        kazinator 5y ago
        I agree that a bunch of people who are all licencees of a software work should be able to exchange instructions with each other for how to modify that to work better for them; I'd like courts to see it that way. These instructions do not increase the number of people who have copies of the work, and so no copying is taking place; copyright should not be applicable here. The licensor may argue that license clauses is being violated, but not copyright; i.e. the users are using the software in ways that they don't like (use is not copying or redistribution).
    - yjftsjthsd-h 5y ago
      IANAL, but this I don't think so; AIUI, the combined work is derivative, but patches are independent (at least where copyright is concerned).
    - rvbissell 5y ago
      If I sold a transparency with nothing but a twirly mustache on it, sized & positioned so that it perfectly placed the mustache on the original Mona Lisa if placed within the frame, would that be a derivative work? (Assume for this question that the Mona Lisa was currently protected by U.S. copyright.)
      - notriddle 5y ago
        This is almost exactly RiffTrax.
      - lmm 5y ago
        > If I sold a transparency with nothing but a twirly mustache on it, sized & positioned so that it perfectly placed the mustache on the original Mona Lisa if placed within the frame, would that be a derivative work? To the extent that it's "based on" copyrightable expression in the Mona Lisa, yes. AIUI the key question is: would a viewer recognise the Mona Lisa from your transparency? And that would be a question of fact for the jury; personally guessing I'd say probably not from just the position of a mustache in a frame, probably yes if you included e.g. an outline of the pose. (In which case it might still be protected fair use, but it would be a derivative work, and you'd have to make that positive defence).
  - pure_simplicity 5y ago
    Can we not still do this? Can someone reach out to the vanced team to discuss this?
MathCodeLove 5y ago
I don't get this argument against proprietary software. People building software should be able to expect payment for their work and effort. Food is required for a healthy society but would anyone here advocate for farmers to give away all of their produce for free? Text-tiles are necessary for society but would you advocate that clothing be provided by the creators free of charge? The only thing different about software is that little to no physical resources are required as a prerequisite to its production, but an individuals time and energy is. A world in which no one was paid to write software would be a world with much worse offerings than what we currently have and would be a net loss for humanity.
- kazinator 5y ago
  > People building software should be able to expect payment for their work and effort. But, but, ... Vanced is free-as-in-beer software that prevents Google getting ad revenue for their product/service.
  - xvector 5y ago
    Google is not losing any appreciable amount of money to Vanced.
    - wiseowise 5y ago
      And that justifies its existence?
- tjader 5y ago
  I think a more apt comparison would be requiring farmers to make their farming techniques public, not giving away the food they farmed.
  - rocqua 5y ago
    Sadly it's easier to copy an app than it is to copy a potato.
- 5y ago
dartharva 5y ago
They had to keep it so, otherwise the exploits they used to modify the app would have been right in the open and countered immediately. They did keep its package manager open-source. It's the same with cracked Spotify builds, the famous xManager is open-source but the cracked builds it summons aren't.

by rakoo 5y ago

sreevisakh 5y ago

What is the reason for the cease and desist? Code license or use of content? If it's the latter, then NewPipe won't survive either. We really need an alternative to YouTube, not another frontend to this exploitative platform.

EMIRELADERO 5y ago
Vanced didn't publish the letter, but I'd argue it was a code copyright issue. They applied patches to the original YouTube APK and then distributed it. If they had only distributed the patch diffs themselves and a tool to patch the user-provided YouTube app file, this wouldn't have happened.
- chii 5y ago
  The diff patches would be considered derivative, since you cannot make it without knowing the original.
  - EMIRELADERO 5y ago
    Courts have interpreted derivative works to be so when at least some parts of it contain the original copyrighted work. If that test fails, the whole derivative work argument is null and void.
    - kazinator 5y ago
      Do you know of a precedent? I wouldn't want to be the one with my neck on the line in court over this. Consider that .torrent files also don't have the content, yet torrent sites which serve them and provide tracking for torrent clients are having to play cat and mouse with copyright holders.
      - bitwize 5y ago
        There have been court cases on this. In Galoob v. Nintendo, the Ninth Circuit ruled that Galoob did not infringe copyright by distributing a device (the Game Genie) that allowed users to modify copyrighted video games. The case established, at the time, that modifying a computer program or other copyrighted work for personal use was fair use. That said, so much of what we knew about copyright and software in the 90s has been overturned by subsequent rulings or even statutes (like the DMCA) that if you wish to avoid being burned by copyright suits, you must retain an attorney knowledgeable in this area of law. (Which is true in any case.) As an example, look-and-feel copyrights are back on the table thanks to The Tetris Company LLC.
        kazinator 5y ago
        I agree that a bunch of people who are all licencees of a software work should be able to exchange instructions with each other for how to modify that to work better for them; I'd like courts to see it that way. These instructions do not increase the number of people who have copies of the work, and so no copying is taking place; copyright should not be applicable here. The licensor may argue that license clauses is being violated, but not copyright; i.e. the users are using the software in ways that they don't like (use is not copying or redistribution).
  - yjftsjthsd-h 5y ago
    IANAL, but this I don't think so; AIUI, the combined work is derivative, but patches are independent (at least where copyright is concerned).
  - rvbissell 5y ago
    If I sold a transparency with nothing but a twirly mustache on it, sized & positioned so that it perfectly placed the mustache on the original Mona Lisa if placed within the frame, would that be a derivative work? (Assume for this question that the Mona Lisa was currently protected by U.S. copyright.)
    - notriddle 5y ago
      This is almost exactly RiffTrax.
    - lmm 5y ago
      > If I sold a transparency with nothing but a twirly mustache on it, sized & positioned so that it perfectly placed the mustache on the original Mona Lisa if placed within the frame, would that be a derivative work? To the extent that it's "based on" copyrightable expression in the Mona Lisa, yes. AIUI the key question is: would a viewer recognise the Mona Lisa from your transparency? And that would be a question of fact for the jury; personally guessing I'd say probably not from just the position of a mustache in a frame, probably yes if you included e.g. an outline of the pose. (In which case it might still be protected fair use, but it would be a derivative work, and you'd have to make that positive defence).
- pure_simplicity 5y ago
  Can we not still do this? Can someone reach out to the vanced team to discuss this?

MathCodeLove 5y ago

I don't get this argument against proprietary software. People building software should be able to expect payment for their work and effort. Food is required for a healthy society but would anyone here advocate for farmers to give away all of their produce for free? Text-tiles are necessary for society but would you advocate that clothing be provided by the creators free of charge? The only thing different about software is that little to no physical resources are required as a prerequisite to its production, but an individuals time and energy is. A world in which no one was paid to write software would be a world with much worse offerings than what we currently have and would be a net loss for humanity.

kazinator 5y ago
> People building software should be able to expect payment for their work and effort. But, but, ... Vanced is free-as-in-beer software that prevents Google getting ad revenue for their product/service.
- xvector 5y ago
  Google is not losing any appreciable amount of money to Vanced.
  - wiseowise 5y ago
    And that justifies its existence?
tjader 5y ago
I think a more apt comparison would be requiring farmers to make their farming techniques public, not giving away the food they farmed.
- rocqua 5y ago
  Sadly it's easier to copy an app than it is to copy a potato.
5y ago

dartharva 5y ago

They had to keep it so, otherwise the exploits they used to modify the app would have been right in the open and countered immediately. They did keep its package manager open-source. It's the same with cracked Spotify builds, the famous xManager is open-source but the cracked builds it summons aren't.