The ReVanced Manager allows User to „patch“ many Apps - including YouTube - to remove Ads and other Annoyances as well as to add functionality and settings.
Why I think this tool should be added
I currently (I say currently because probably there is a reason why it is not recommended which is just not yet written down) think we should add the ReVanced because you can do things with it which can‘t be achieved with NewPipe or LibreTube.
These are mostly / only usability and customization improvements, but privacy is of course not the only criteria for recommending a tool (otherwise, there would be only the privacy-wise best tool recommended so in the browsers section for example only the TOR-Browser because it is the best privacy-wise). The only disadvantage that Googles tracking is still there can be mitigated by using a DNS-Level ad- and tracker blocker (Control D, Pi-hole, NextDNS) which could be said by a warning. Here are the advantages of using a with ReVanced patched YouTube instead of using NewPipe or LibreTube:
Firstly, since ReVanced patches the official YouTube app, it also uses the official YouTube API. This makes the traffic look like normal traffic for Google. Advertising blocking is effective at the local app/client level, not by bypassing the official API as with NewPipe and LibreTube. Therefore, a with ReVanced patched YouTube app is blocked much less often than NewPipe and LibreTube.
Second, there are much more customization options available than on NewPipe or LibreTube. You can choose a custom app label and a custom app icon. There are also themes available, which are all things which can‘t be achieved with NewPipe or LibreTube.
Third, DeArrow https://dearrow.ajay.app/ can be used without a necessary Piped proxy in between (in NewPipe, DeArrow is not at all supported and in LibreTube only with the Piped proxy enabled).
(@anonymous549@redoomed1 I am very sorry for my stupidity of the previous topic; suggesting a recommendation of „one and / or another tool“ is of course dumb, I should‘ve thought of this.)
@seize No, ReVanced is not illegal because you act within the limits of your digital right to self-determination; you only modify how things look to you within your own device.
It‘d be not legal if the modified YouTube app APK would be given directly to download.
@seize Yes, it adds an additional party to trust; but this trust is also existing if you use NewPipe or LibreTube which are both recommended. Therefore, this isn‘t an argument against adding ReVanced.
I would just like to say that I never called Revanced outright illegal and I have no ill will towards the Revanced team.
At the time that I made my original post I was discussing the discontinuation of YouTube Vanced, which appeared to be in part due to unlocking premium YouTube features along with branding similarities.
I have not used any Revanced applications, and it does appear that they have managed to avoid Google’s ire, for now anyway.
I am not sure this is correct. The DMCA and, other laws based on it, criminalize bypassing digital locks or access controls, which is almost certainly the purpose of this type of patching. Cory Doctorow’s Enshitification talks a lot about this.
Feel free to correct me if I am wrong, I am not an expert on this subject.
The DMCA says „No person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work“ - removing ads is not bypassing a „technological measure that effectively controls access to a work“ since ads don‘t control access to a work.
For downloads: The mere aggravation of automated access by frequent technical changes does not in itself constitute an effective technical protection measure within the meaning of the DMCA, as long as access to the plant remains possible for the regular client without additional access control. ReVanced does not bypass an „effective“, server-side paywall like DRM.
I am not sure if you meant ads, downloads or anything else from ReVanced
Could you please clarify what thing exactly from ReVanced is bypassing digital locks or access controls?
I think you may be taking a bit to black and white of an approach. Courts often interpret laws based on intent and usage, not just language. Any sort of subversion of the apps ReVanced is patching would count, such as removing ads, unlocking or changing features.
YouTube or whomever else could easily argue, for example, in the case of removing ads, or making features available that were not intended that ReVanced is undercutting their rights as the creators of those apps.
Based on what law would they do that? Yes, I understand that big-tech companies would do this if there’d be a law that says so, so unless you can’t cite a specific law that says so, this is not a usable argument.
Is the whole app open source? I’m not clear on this. If it is, then there is room for discussion. If the code is not open source, PG should not even be considering this. Its a fundamental point to ensure trust that devs don’t go rogue and slip something sketchy inside the code.
Second, apps like NewPipe are their own native thing, which puts them in the clear. Correct me if I an wrong, but doesn’t revanced modify the original YouTube apk? That could be more sketchy from a licensing / copyright perspective
This sentence is the edit: Clarification: Yes it does.
§ 106 Copyright Act says:
the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following: […]
(2) to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work
YES, if you ONLY look at that text it seems very clear that using ReVanced is illegal. But § 117 Copyright Act says:
**(a) Making of Additional Copy or Adaptation by Owner of Copy.—**Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, it is not an infringement for the owner of a copy of a computer program to make or authorize the making of another copy or adaptation of that computer program provided:
(1) that such a new copy or adaptation is created as an essential step in the utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine and that it is used in no other manner
This is what I mean by being to black and white about this.
It’s important to recognize that laws like the DMCA are often interpreted with some flexibility, as I mentioned before. Courts may focus on the purpose and impact of actions rather than just legal definitions.
The intent behind removing ads or altering features could be viewed by courts as undermining the original creators’ rights. Even if ads don’t control access in a traditional sense.
This has legal precedent, such as Universal Music v. MP3.com case. The ruling highlights that modifications, such as those made by ReVanced—like removing ads or unlocking features—can similarly be viewed through the lens of intent.
As said in 11, looking at § 117 Copyright Act, it is clear that it is legal. If there’s one law that says explicitly and very clear that an action is legal, you can’t modify that conclusion through past cases if they weren’t exactly about that specific thing.
While it’s true that § 106 provides owners exclusive rights to prepare derivative works, this does not automatically mean that all modifications are legally permissible.
Section 117 does allow for certain adaptations, but its intent is to support personal use without infringing on creators’ rights. The key phrase “essential step” implies that the adaptations should be strictly for operational purposes. Using ReVanced to remove ads or unlock features may go beyond what’s considered “essential”.
Grammatically, “essential step” refers to “utilization”, not “adaptation”.
It means not that the change has to be “essential” (i.e. indispensable), but that the change has to be an integral part of the act of using the program itself, rather than a exploitative, or distributive modification.
On 2nd look I agree, “essential step” is referring to “utilization". To me, this does not change my point in any meaningful way.
The interpretation of what constitutes “integral” can vary. For example, while unlocking features is related to usage, it may not serve the intended purpose of the software.
Furthermore certain changes may technically relate to utilizing the software, they often serve a purpose beyond mere functionality. These modifications can be seen as altering the user experience and, consequently, the intended operation of the software. I think most users would agree that there is a significant difference in experience when ads are removed and that is a large basis for wanting them removed.
Courts often look at how modifications impact the original work and its revenue model. If, for example, removing ads is viewed as deviating from or undermining the intended function, there is a significant risk that it could be classified as an unauthorized adaptation.
The fact that ReVanced exists at all speaks to my point. The original project (Vanced) received a cease-and-desist letter from Google due to legal concerns over the app’s unauthorized use of YouTube’s proprietary code and features.
Yes, it does not serve the intended purpose of the software. But the law doesn‘t distingush between serving the intended purpose of the software and not serving the intended purpose of the software.
which is what Vanced did. ReVanced does not do this, that‘s the difference between these two projects, that‘s why Vanced was illegal and ReVanced is legal.
Bringing things back on to the topic of Revanced as a potential recommendation I do believe that the app technically meets the criteria for recommendation under the front ends section.
One issue I would like to raise is that it has is not currently possible to install Revanced via Fdriod, Google play store, or Accrescent, thus requiring the user to either side load the app or use Obtainium. As I have not used Revanced before I do not know how it handles updates, though I believe it can fetch updates itself.
Download the official ReVanced Manager APK from revanced.app.
Open it, patch the YouTube APK, finished.
I think you‘re supposed to not change anything if you have the YouTube APK patched once. (But I‘m not sure.)
Since YouTube is not security relevant it‘s I guess also not important to update except if the YouTube update includes a change to maintain functionality.
Your previous thread was locked, so I’m responding to your reply here.
I didn’t know RVX had been discontinued. Do we know what shady thing ReVanced is accused of doing? If it is as bad as the people behind RVX seem to suggest, I admire them for taking this bold stand.
I am open to trying out Morphe. Does it require a Google account for using their modded versions of YouTube’s services? Also, what does the modded version of Redding bring in terms of features?
