A. I expected the project to be discontinued due to my aging development environment, but there were other reasons:
Note
Over the past three years, 80% of the contributions to YouTube ReVanced have been made by a small number of specific contributors.
Contributors have not accepted any donations for three years and have been working for the public good.
Contributors have also directly or indirectly helped fix long-standing bugs in RVX.
Recently, the ReVanced Team blacklisted (banned) these same contributors who have been actively contributing to YouTube ReVanced over the past three years.
The discontinuation of RVX is the greatest protest I can make against the ReVanced Team’s recent actions.
I no longer want any packages or libraries using the ReVanced branding, so I have not designated a successor for the project.
For these reasons, I made my GitHub profile private about a month ago and prepared for the release of Morphe.
Even if adaptations aren’t categorized as illegal based solely on whether they align with the software’s original intent, the potential to undermine the creator’s model or alter the user experience can still lead to legal scrutiny.
The crux of the issue really hinges on how the law would interpret the use of adaptations. While ReVanced may not distribute the modified APK directly, the modifications it enables, such as ad removal or feature unlocking, still alter the original functionality intended by YouTube or others.
There’s a balance between user rights and creators’ rights. Even if ReVanced can claim legality under § 117, there’s still a significant gray area surrounding the implications of such modifications, especially in terms of the creator’s revenue model and intended user experience.
To me, they operate under different premises. For instance, those tools primarily serve to block ads without modifying the underlying code of the original content — they act more like intermediaries rather than alterations to the software itself. They are not altering the underlying content. In contrast, ReVanced modifies the application itself, which can complicate the legal standing. Granted all that could change as you point out.
I am not really trying to argue ReVanced is illegal but I do think its innappropriate to state with confidence that its definitively legal when it clearly operates in a legal gray area.
It is a very big and hard topic. I am not gonna to say here who I think is right (I took ReVanced from ReVanced and Morphe because it is more well-known). The ReVanced guy even said itself „read and evaluate the truth“. If you want to do that, see
.
Edit: If you see any linked URL that is not working in these Reddit threads, try to reach it with the WayBack Machine (archive.org), worked for me every single time.
Which law? Courts judge based on laws. So, based on which law should their ruling impact whether it potentially undermines the creator‘s model or alters the user experience or not?
For that point, I agree - I don‘t think that if Brave Shields and uBlock Origin are legal it necessarily means that ReVanced is legal.
As NewPipe and LibreTube since you act against the YouTube Tems of Service.
Copyright and fair use principles, which interpret modifications based on intent and impact. Courts may assess whether adaptations disrupt revenue models (removing ads would be the easy one to point to) or user experience. Just because it isn’t outright illegal doesn’t mean it’s unequivocally legal; context matters. I feel like I have said this multiple times now, so maybe I am not communicating clearly enough.
Yes, you said this already multiple times. I also may be not communicating clearly enough - Please name a specific law that prooves your point. You say all the time something like „fair use principles“, but if you don‘t cite a specific law, we can‘t argue properly.
I agree with you although my position may be a little bit more on the left than yours on
ReVanced is clearly legal - ReVanced is a legal gray area - ReVanced is clearly illegal.
However, the only criteria when it comes to if Privacy Guides is recommending a tool or not in case of laws is (I think) if it is illegal or not. If it is not illegal, then it is worth considering, and then it doesn‘t matter if it is clearly legal or a legal gray area. The fact that NewPipe and LibreTube which both operate in a legal gray area since they both act against the YouTube Terms of Service are recommended shows that „this tool operates in a legal gray area“ isn‘t enough to exclude a tool (however, ReVanced is a little bit more in the direction of illegal because it acts against the YouTube Terms of Service plus operates because of the copyright law and the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) in a legal gray area - so 2x legal gray area instead of 1x legal gray area compared to NewPipe and LibreTube). — So, what we are discussing seems to be obviously not even a relevant point for a Privacy Guides recommendation of ReVanced (but still a interesting topic, maybe something for the „Off Topic“ Section ).
(On a sidenote, PG comes even close to promoting or helping piracy by saying „Should I use a VPN?
Yes, almost certainly. A VPN has many advantages, including:
Hiding your traffic from only your Internet Service Provider.
Hiding your downloads (such as torrents) from your ISP and anti-piracy organizations.“)
Obviously this is wholly dependant on what country you reside in. I will use the United States as an example and will point to Section 106 of the Copyright Act, which outlines the exclusive rights of copyright holders, and Section 1201 of the DMCA, which prohibits circumventing digital rights management (DRM).
It can be argued that ReVanced’s patching features bypass DRM protections established by content providers. Additionally, it would be challenging to claim fair use when it comes to features such as circumventing ads on a platform like YouTube, especially since YouTube actively promotes its Premium subscription for users who want an ad-free experience. Which goes back to what I had mentioned previously about how courts often look at how modifications impact the original work and its revenue model.
I don’t have an issue with that, really only @jonah can speak to that though.
I do apologize if I have steered this thread off-topic but I have been enjoying the back-and-fourth.
I think very few people actually even have a Google account connected with microG. They said also in your link they‘d adopt this mitigation which was 2 months ago, not sure if they did it yet - it might be even a past problem
Drama: Yes, as already said, there are big disputes on ReVanced - just like with Brave which is recommended, disputes aren‘t a reason to not recommend a tool obviously
I agree. Like I have said, it operates in a legal gray area.
I realize the case itself is not apples-to-apples but I do wonder if this ‘rolling cipher’ argument could be used against ReVanced patching clients as well.
I don’t understand all this debate about the legality of an app whose sole purpose is to facilitate access to videos, which are filled with increasingly intrusive ads and waste a huge amount of time over the course of a year.
Not everyone can afford a YouTube Premium subscription, especially since YouTube keeps raising its prices…
Not suggesting the app because it violates certain laws doesn’t make sense either. Encryption is prohibited in some countries, so should we stop recommending Veracrypt or LUKS?
VPNs is illegal in some countries, so should we stop recommending them?
So, if YT ReVanced or Morphe meets the criteria, we should recommend it.
You are overthinking it. @SYST3M_D3STR0YER and I just enjoyed that aspect. The whole conversation is most likely off-topic.
PG doesn’t just reccomend tools because they meet the criteria.
This seems like a slippery slope. Should PG start reccommending IPTV services or debrid services that accept XMR then? Those are more private and cheaper then typical streaming.
I am not here to say if ReVanced should or should not be reccomended based on its legality but, its silly to just ignore if something is illegal to a large population of users as a factor. Most western countries have some flavor of DMCA.
I have never been blocked. I’ve used my main account for a year, but I use YouTube on my phone less often now. I think microG hasn’t been recognizing me.
@phnx Why did you react to the topic with thumbs down ? Do you think ReVanced is bad or not worth recommending? I‘d like to know your opinion + your arguments !
instead of 1x legal gray area compared to NewPipe and LibreTube). — So, what we are discussing seems to be obviously not even a relevant point for a Privacy Guides recommendation of ReVanced (but still a interesting topic, maybe something for the „Off Topic“ Section 
).