7 ms·

> 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

> 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 have voided any attempt to do that? Something doesn't add up.

toxicFork 5y ago
NDA?
- 3np 5y ago
  Why would they sign one? A gag-order does not seem super likely, but more-so than an NDA.
- stjohnswarts 5y ago
  More likely just legal threats to say "this is the opening shot, but these are the cruise missiles we have aimed at your bank account and life in general". Lawyers don't care, they will destroy you and your loved ones (edit: obviously not physically but legally and financially) and sleep like a baby at night.
DocG 5y ago
Seems legit. I think they think it's a warning shot, they are now on Google's list. This letter is a "nice" way of saying - guys well you are now on our list and shut down or well force you to shut down. Smart play, rather end on a high note, without months and months of C&Do letters and axety and stress. Learn and move on.
- netsharc 5y ago
  It could be that Google says they're infringing on the logo design, and Google demanded that they stop distributing the app due to this. "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.
  - 8note 5y ago
    Logos are easy to change though
    - dragonwriter 5y ago
      > Logos are easy to change though 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.
TrianguloY 5y ago
They did tried to change the logo a few days before all this, at least on Discord. 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.
saurik 5y ago
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 with trademarks and logos--only ever talking about a client "for" some other service as opposed to using that service's name as a modifier on your app (so, "YouTube Vanced" is definitely never OK and a dumb decision when you could say "Vanced for YouTube" or even be extremely safe and just stick with "Vanced", leaving any mention of "YouTube" to your descriptions), etc.--lest you get wrecked. And yet, somehow, you see it happen time and time again as people just can't help themselves when it comes to using other peoples' trademarks for their clients. 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).
- oauea 5y ago
  Copyright and trademark law isn't taught in most schools. Why would you expect most people to know how to avoid the traps laid out by the corporations?
  - saurik 5y ago
    1) One reason I feel it is so "obvious" is that trademark law (which I am going to isolate, as this has nothing to do with copyright law: the two are often lumped together but they are extremely different and serve a very different purpose) is more reasonably structured than people give it credit for and most of it really is designed to prevent impersonation, which by and large helps consumers and end users; and like, frankly, in most of these cases, if you ask people why they insisted on using the other person's product's name in their product it actually isn't benign: they actively want their users to confused the two products a bit. 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?".
Zak 5y ago
Vanced is a modified version of the official Youtube app. I'm not a lawyer, but I'm pretty sure it's a copyright violation to distribute modified versions of someone else's software without their permission. 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.
- jeroenhd 5y ago
  The author probably knows that Google could sue the ever living hell out of them for copyright and trademark violations, or maybe even go so far as to try to extract "lost revenue" from skipped ads by arguing that the trademark violation might have tricked people into thinking the app was official and therefore unknowingly deprived Google of ads. 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.
- ipaddr 5y ago
  That's for the lawyers. The source will be sold and resurface somewhere.
- kmeisthax 5y ago
  The source code itself is probably also an infringing derivative work of YouTube's Android app.
- izacus 5y ago
  Hmm, aren't tools that circumvent DRM and copyright protections also illegal under DMCA? Because Vanced source would certanly wall under that.
  - kevin_thibedeau 5y ago
    No DRM is involved to extract an app manifest. DMCA circumvention rules don't apply. It is still an unauthorized derivative work.
ntauthority 5y ago
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')
stjohnswarts 5y ago
It seems unlikely to me as well. There has to be something more to it than that. Maybe they were threatened to be taken to court anyway if they said anything else about the cease and desist letter.

toxicFork 5y ago

NDA?

3np 5y ago
Why would they sign one? A gag-order does not seem super likely, but more-so than an NDA.
stjohnswarts 5y ago
More likely just legal threats to say "this is the opening shot, but these are the cruise missiles we have aimed at your bank account and life in general". Lawyers don't care, they will destroy you and your loved ones (edit: obviously not physically but legally and financially) and sleep like a baby at night.

DocG 5y ago

Seems legit. I think they think it's a warning shot, they are now on Google's list. This letter is a "nice" way of saying - guys well you are now on our list and shut down or well force you to shut down. Smart play, rather end on a high note, without months and months of C&Do letters and axety and stress. Learn and move on.

netsharc 5y ago
It could be that Google says they're infringing on the logo design, and Google demanded that they stop distributing the app due to this. "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.
- 8note 5y ago
  Logos are easy to change though
  - dragonwriter 5y ago
    > Logos are easy to change though 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.

TrianguloY 5y ago

They did tried to change the logo a few days before all this, at least on Discord. 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.

saurik 5y ago

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 with trademarks and logos--only ever talking about a client "for" some other service as opposed to using that service's name as a modifier on your app (so, "YouTube Vanced" is definitely never OK and a dumb decision when you could say "Vanced for YouTube" or even be extremely safe and just stick with "Vanced", leaving any mention of "YouTube" to your descriptions), etc.--lest you get wrecked. And yet, somehow, you see it happen time and time again as people just can't help themselves when it comes to using other peoples' trademarks for their clients. 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).

oauea 5y ago
Copyright and trademark law isn't taught in most schools. Why would you expect most people to know how to avoid the traps laid out by the corporations?
- saurik 5y ago
  1) One reason I feel it is so "obvious" is that trademark law (which I am going to isolate, as this has nothing to do with copyright law: the two are often lumped together but they are extremely different and serve a very different purpose) is more reasonably structured than people give it credit for and most of it really is designed to prevent impersonation, which by and large helps consumers and end users; and like, frankly, in most of these cases, if you ask people why they insisted on using the other person's product's name in their product it actually isn't benign: they actively want their users to confused the two products a bit. 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?".

Zak 5y ago

Vanced is a modified version of the official Youtube app. I'm not a lawyer, but I'm pretty sure it's a copyright violation to distribute modified versions of someone else's software without their permission. 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.

jeroenhd 5y ago
The author probably knows that Google could sue the ever living hell out of them for copyright and trademark violations, or maybe even go so far as to try to extract "lost revenue" from skipped ads by arguing that the trademark violation might have tricked people into thinking the app was official and therefore unknowingly deprived Google of ads. 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.
ipaddr 5y ago
That's for the lawyers. The source will be sold and resurface somewhere.
kmeisthax 5y ago
The source code itself is probably also an infringing derivative work of YouTube's Android app.
izacus 5y ago
Hmm, aren't tools that circumvent DRM and copyright protections also illegal under DMCA? Because Vanced source would certanly wall under that.
- kevin_thibedeau 5y ago
  No DRM is involved to extract an app manifest. DMCA circumvention rules don't apply. It is still an unauthorized derivative work.

ntauthority 5y ago

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')

stjohnswarts 5y ago

It seems unlikely to me as well. There has to be something more to it than that. Maybe they were threatened to be taken to court anyway if they said anything else about the cease and desist letter.