Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

> nor are they derivative works

That isn't so obvious to me. For all intents and purposes this is no different from crack. I am not sure if DMCA is right tool but I totally understand why Microsoft wouldn't want to host it.



> For all intents and purposes this is no different from crack.

Yes, and you cannot take down crack using DMCA either!

Edit: If the crack is a keygen or patcher, of course. Patched orginal binaries can be taken down.


> Patched orginal binaries can be taken down.

That's what Vanced was, isn't it the same case with ReVanced?


My understanding was that `revanced-patches` contained just that: patches. The patches themselves are applied to the target apps on the end user device, so revanced doesn't need to host prepatched binaries that they don't own the copyright to.

Other moral or legal issues aside, this is a pretty clear abuse of the DMCA as far as I understand it.


No, Revanced only has the patches themselves in the repo, there's zero source code or binary or anything copyright related belonging to Google here, the DMCA is invalid.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: