6 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

by Aaargh20318 5y ago

> 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 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 ?

that_guy_iain 5y ago
Because Google probably had more than just your logo looks like ours.
bradleybuda 5y ago
It’s a get-rich-quick scheme, not a get-rich-by-putting-in-a-little-bit-of-work-when-presented-with-adversity scheme.
derefr 5y ago
My impression is that they aren’t legally allowed to reuse any of the source code that was ever used in vanced. 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.
- UncleMeat 5y ago
  > because nobody will know the difference Bytecode inspection is a thing. It isn't too hard to know if two apks share a large amount of source.
  - kasabali 5y ago
    Bytecode inspection works both ways in this case. 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).
- markmark 5y ago
  Yeah, they were illegally distributing Google's copyrighted source code this entire time. It's just easier to prove the trademark thing, so Google lead off with that.
  - 3np 5y ago
    bytecode, not source code.
    - kangalioo 5y ago
      Modified bytecode, not just bytecode (or else any APK hoster would be illegal)
      - 3np 5y ago
        As noted in OP, the takedown was related to reuse of trademark (logo, name), not redistribution of the modified binary.
        shabier 5y ago
        The comment tread is arguing that it's hard to prove modified binary rather than the easier way; reuse of the trademark. Either way, both the modification and redistribution are illegal.
      - arlcode 5y ago
        Any APK hoster which distributes bytecode (or any other software) without prior permission acts illegaly. 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.
- R0b0t1 5y ago
  But why? If the complaint is just about the logo this makes no sense.
jffry 5y ago
My take is that Google wanted Vanced dead. On top of trademark problems, if the app was a modified official client then copyright is also at issue. And there's always the CFAA hammer looming. 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)
- AniseAbyss 5y ago
  As soon as Vanced gained too much fame it was a foregone conclusion that Google would kill them.

that_guy_iain 5y ago

Because Google probably had more than just your logo looks like ours.

bradleybuda 5y ago

It’s a get-rich-quick scheme, not a get-rich-by-putting-in-a-little-bit-of-work-when-presented-with-adversity scheme.

derefr 5y ago

My impression is that they aren’t legally allowed to reuse any of the source code that was ever used in vanced. 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.

UncleMeat 5y ago
> because nobody will know the difference Bytecode inspection is a thing. It isn't too hard to know if two apks share a large amount of source.
- kasabali 5y ago
  Bytecode inspection works both ways in this case. 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).
markmark 5y ago
Yeah, they were illegally distributing Google's copyrighted source code this entire time. It's just easier to prove the trademark thing, so Google lead off with that.
- 3np 5y ago
  bytecode, not source code.
  - kangalioo 5y ago
    Modified bytecode, not just bytecode (or else any APK hoster would be illegal)
    - 3np 5y ago
      As noted in OP, the takedown was related to reuse of trademark (logo, name), not redistribution of the modified binary.
      - shabier 5y ago
        The comment tread is arguing that it's hard to prove modified binary rather than the easier way; reuse of the trademark. Either way, both the modification and redistribution are illegal.
    - arlcode 5y ago
      Any APK hoster which distributes bytecode (or any other software) without prior permission acts illegaly. 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.
R0b0t1 5y ago
But why? If the complaint is just about the logo this makes no sense.

jffry 5y ago

My take is that Google wanted Vanced dead. On top of trademark problems, if the app was a modified official client then copyright is also at issue. And there's always the CFAA hammer looming. 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)

AniseAbyss 5y ago
As soon as Vanced gained too much fame it was a foregone conclusion that Google would kill them.