3 ms·

At least they didn't make the copyright mistakes this time. Perhaps it would be better if this version of Vanced stayed difficult to install to avoid spreading

At least they didn't make the copyright mistakes this time. Perhaps it would be better if this version of Vanced stayed difficult to install to avoid spreading it too wide.

gruez 5y ago
>At least they didn't make the copyright mistakes this time more like, trademark mistakes. Patching and redistributing a proprietary app most definitely violates copyrights.
- l-lousy 5y ago
  Google didn’t do anything until Vanced tried to release an NFT and profit off the app
  - LosWochosWeek 5y ago
    How can people actually believe that? Sure, a 'deleted-an-hour-after-posting' tweet is what made Google muster up all their lawyers to take down an app that millions used to circumvent paying for YouTube Premium and/or watch ads. It was a stupid coincident. Google would've killed Vanced sooner or later.
    - throwaway64643 5y ago
      When a narrative fits one's belief, they won't stop to question its validity.
- lb_ 5y ago
  > redistributing a proprietary app Revanced patches the locally installed version, so hopefully that means they'll be in the clear
moondev 5y ago
> Not affiliated with Vanced team. I wonder if the original "vanced" can now file a dispute over this project's name?
- mminer237 5y ago
  Theoretically they could sue for trademark infringements, but: 1. ReVanced has a disclaimer that they're not affiliated, which helps make sure people aren't confused. 2. The Vanced people probably are glad someone's continuing their efforts after they're no longer able to. 3. Vanced has been discontinued and taken down, so it's no longer "used in commerce", so I think the common law trademark should cease to exist.
  - LosWochosWeek 5y ago
    > sue for trademark infringements Yeah, maybe at the piracy trademark comission on pirate island... For obvious reasons Vanced had no trademark on anything and thus can't sue for trademark infringements. They could possibly sue for a copyright infringement, but for that they'd have to prove that they do in fact hold a copyright on whatever they're suing for. They'd have to prove that (whatever) indeed is either (a) an original work that's protected under copyright or (b) it's a derivative work that's protected under copyright.
    - mminer237 5y ago
      Most common law jurisdictions give trademarks as a matter of law just for using something in commerce. I think Vanced could have legitimately sued to stop another product called "Vanced" from using that name. What "obvious reason" would prevent them from having had a trademark? Copyright infringement is a much stronger claim at this point if they were actually upset. Vanced obviously had original code, so to the extent ReVanced copies that without permission, it would be infringing.

At least they didn't make the copyright mistakes this time. Perhaps it would be better if this version of Vanced stayed difficult to install to avoid spreading it too wide.

gruez 5y ago

>At least they didn't make the copyright mistakes this time more like, trademark mistakes. Patching and redistributing a proprietary app most definitely violates copyrights.

l-lousy 5y ago
Google didn’t do anything until Vanced tried to release an NFT and profit off the app
- LosWochosWeek 5y ago
  How can people actually believe that? Sure, a 'deleted-an-hour-after-posting' tweet is what made Google muster up all their lawyers to take down an app that millions used to circumvent paying for YouTube Premium and/or watch ads. It was a stupid coincident. Google would've killed Vanced sooner or later.
  - throwaway64643 5y ago
    When a narrative fits one's belief, they won't stop to question its validity.
lb_ 5y ago
> redistributing a proprietary app Revanced patches the locally installed version, so hopefully that means they'll be in the clear

moondev 5y ago

> Not affiliated with Vanced team. I wonder if the original "vanced" can now file a dispute over this project's name?

mminer237 5y ago
Theoretically they could sue for trademark infringements, but: 1. ReVanced has a disclaimer that they're not affiliated, which helps make sure people aren't confused. 2. The Vanced people probably are glad someone's continuing their efforts after they're no longer able to. 3. Vanced has been discontinued and taken down, so it's no longer "used in commerce", so I think the common law trademark should cease to exist.
- LosWochosWeek 5y ago
  > sue for trademark infringements Yeah, maybe at the piracy trademark comission on pirate island... For obvious reasons Vanced had no trademark on anything and thus can't sue for trademark infringements. They could possibly sue for a copyright infringement, but for that they'd have to prove that they do in fact hold a copyright on whatever they're suing for. They'd have to prove that (whatever) indeed is either (a) an original work that's protected under copyright or (b) it's a derivative work that's protected under copyright.
  - mminer237 5y ago
    Most common law jurisdictions give trademarks as a matter of law just for using something in commerce. I think Vanced could have legitimately sued to stop another product called "Vanced" from using that name. What "obvious reason" would prevent them from having had a trademark? Copyright infringement is a much stronger claim at this point if they were actually upset. Vanced obviously had original code, so to the extent ReVanced copies that without permission, it would be infringing.