5 ms·

This is a bit of a what-if, but I had a Pebble watch back then and was considering trying to make an app for it. The idea that, if I had succeeded and published

This is a bit of a what-if, but I had a Pebble watch back then and was considering trying to make an app for it. The idea that, if I had succeeded and published the app, that Rebble would be claiming ownership over my binary and threatening legal action against the original Pebble creator, to be really quite ridiculous and affronting.

tomaskafka 11mo ago
I am one of the developers who did make Pebble apps - here's a screenshot with the Pebble version of Weathergraph on Eric's watch: https://x.com/weathergraph/status/1959253197664469246 https://x.com/weathergraph/status/1959253197664469246 Today is the day I found out Rebble is claiming the ownership of my app's binaries. All I can say is that they don't have it.
- Brian_K_White 11mo ago
  [flagged]
  - philipwhiuk 11mo ago
    > Rebble does not claim to "own" your app, they only claim to have done a lot of work saving and patching abandoned apps and recreated a whole service for managing and distributing them, wrote new apps, published new apps along with the old, to support watch owners that Pebble abandoned. Because they never had the right to redistribute it. This is like YouTube shutting down and me offering a bunch of videos I download for free, claiming that setting up a portal was a lot of work so I get rights. I’d get sued to high heaven and the only reason Rebble is getting away with it is that the watch face developers aren’t big outfits with lawyers.
    - Brian_K_White 11mo ago
      Core doesn not have any rights to it. Pebble did, and Pebble threw it away. Rebble honors copyright by taking anything down that a rightsholder says to. That's all copyright grants, and they are doing it. If you own an app and don't want Rebble to redistribute it, they won't. Core has no claim to anything. This is CoreTube coming along years later "Hey I used to work for Youtube. Give me your copy of all those videos other people actaully made and own, that Youtube threw away years ago. Also give me your whole NewTube back end site you wrote from scratch because I want to make CoreTube now and I don't have my old Youtube stuff any more because I sold it." Like holy fucking are you kidding me?
      - Defletter 11mo ago
        You keep repeating that Core has no rights to that data, which is true, but it's a refutation to an argument no-one in this thread has made. What we're saying is that Rebble has no rights to that data either. Rebble's theft of that data was 'allowed' in the same way that Nickelback allow those "look at this graph" memes (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a7aqZyRuP1Q https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a7aqZyRuP1Q): it's copyright infringement but they don't care so they don't enforce their rights. It's not like trademarks with its use-it-or-lose-it clause. What I'm claiming here is that people who made apps and watch faces for Pebble didn't care (assuming they knew at all) because it was for preservation purposes. But now that Rebble is hoarding it to themselves, to the exclusion of Core, a revived Pebble company, those copyright holders may become less willing to tolerate the copyright infringement. And let's be clear: their rights do not begin and end with just getting it taken down.
        Aeolun 11mo ago
        > And let's be clear: their rights do not begin and end with just getting it taken down. Unless you want to claim lost profit on a free watch face, or try to make the argument that the watch face you didn’t even remember existed until now being hosted on their service caused you some form of emotional distress, maybe they do.
        Brian_K_White 11mo ago
        What? The original article and practically everyone in this thread has tried to make the argument that Core should have what they are asking for, which is the apps that they did not husband and everything else that they did not build. If Core were just building their own new app store from scratch there would be no discussion. The only reason there is even any discussion at all is because they are not doing that, they are trying to take over Rebbles app store. Rebble doesn't claim to own the apps. Rebble will even remove an app if you as the owner of an app tell them to. That means obviously they recognize who owns the apps, which is neither Rebble nor Core. Pebble might have had some claim once upon a time depending on how the terms for developers were written. Rebble didn't steal anything. So, what theft are you talking about? The apps were broadcast on a public server for anyone to download so the download wasn't a theft. They are redistributing those apps which they don't have any copyright to. But they are not selling the apps and they are respecting any authors directive to take an app down. They don't claim to have copyright except to their own new stuff. Pebble aren't "hoarding" anything "to exclusion" except things that are actually theirs. And yes that includes their downloads of old apps. They don't own the IP of the app, they own the copy they downloaded. If someone else wants a copy, they can ask nicely and accept no for an answer. If you actually own an app you can tell Rebble to desist, and they will. What Core wants is just outside of any of those scopes. Pebble voluntarily SOLD themselves. A former principle of Pebble has no tiniest right to anything at this point. They had rights, and they sold them for money. Now they have the money, not the apps, and for damned sure not the wholly new recreated services. They no longer have any claim to anything.
    - Aeolun 11mo ago
      > the only reason Rebble is getting away with it is that the watch face developers aren’t big outfits with lawyers. I’m rather inclined to think that most watch face developers are happy that someone is keeping their watch faces up. The amount of people that has a problem with it can be counted on one hand.
  - IshKebab 11mo ago
    Yeah that's not how copyright works.
    - Brian_K_White 11mo ago
      Yes it is. I mean you gave no specifics so by all means, pick any statement and say what's incorrect about it.
      - renewiltord 11mo ago
        Are you confusing the DMCA safe harbor process with first party distribution of copyrighted material? I'm not an IP maximalist or anything but what you're saying is straightforwardly not the process for distribution of copyrighted material. It is not actually the case that I can legally distribute whatever I like so long as I stop when asked. These are US orgs so assuming US law here. Since you ask for specifics, this part is wrong: > Rebble clearly honors copyright, ex: removing apps on request of the author. Thst's the only right any copyright holder ever has is to say you can't redistribute copies. No. A rights holder can request that you pay for the distribution you already did. You'd then force litigation and it would cost the rights holder a lot for very little gain. Showing harm here would be hard so they don't do it but what you're saying is so far from correct it's unclear why you are insisting on specifics. It's not nuanced.
        Brian_K_White 11mo ago
        It is not wrong. All I said was that Rebble has demonstrated that they respect copyright. Taking down an app on request means you acknowledge that the person making the request has the right to do so. It's true that a rightsholder could go further and sue for damages, and maybe even win. So what? The last time that happened, was Rebble actually found guilty of operating in bad faith? Were the damages significant or trivial? Did Rebble try to deny the authors rights? Unknown because it has never happened so it's immaterial. These imaginary possibles are possible but cannot be used as proof of Rebble behaving badly unless and until it actually happens and Rebble behaves badly or is found by a court to have been. What we DO have is that when an app author asserts their copyright, Rebble complies. I am not saying, and never did say that it's explicity legal to redistribute these apps without having first aquired the copyright from the authors.
  - dmitrygr 11mo ago
    > Rebble clearly honors copyright, ex: removing apps on request of the author. Thst's the only right any copyright holder ever has is to say you can't redistribute copies. That is not at all how copyright works, like ... at all. If it worked as you claim, I could host a copy of disney movies on my site till disney asks me to stop, and then i stop doing that and walk away free. Clearly this is not at all how that would go down. No matter who abandons what, how, or why, for at least 90(?) years after a work was created in USA, it cannot be distributed without permission. End of story. If you were distributing my work, even if you stop when I ask, I can sue you and will win damages for every copy you distributed without permission. The damages would be multiplied by 3(?) if you were doing so knowingly (undeniable in this case)
- chias 11mo ago
  Not really relevant to the conversation, but: I stumbled across your watchface recently and absolutely love it. It's remarkable how much information density you've achieved while still maintaining "at a glance" clarity. Thank you for the work you put into it!
  - tomaskafka 11mo ago
    Thank you!
- krabizzwainch 11mo ago
  I’m just curious, where has Rebble actually claimed ownership of your app binaries? I’d love to know if it’s something more concrete than “Eric said so.”

tomaskafka 11mo ago

I am one of the developers who did make Pebble apps - here's a screenshot with the Pebble version of Weathergraph on Eric's watch: https://x.com/weathergraph/status/1959253197664469246 https://x.com/weathergraph/status/1959253197664469246 Today is the day I found out Rebble is claiming the ownership of my app's binaries. All I can say is that they don't have it.

Brian_K_White 11mo ago
[flagged]
- philipwhiuk 11mo ago
  > Rebble does not claim to "own" your app, they only claim to have done a lot of work saving and patching abandoned apps and recreated a whole service for managing and distributing them, wrote new apps, published new apps along with the old, to support watch owners that Pebble abandoned. Because they never had the right to redistribute it. This is like YouTube shutting down and me offering a bunch of videos I download for free, claiming that setting up a portal was a lot of work so I get rights. I’d get sued to high heaven and the only reason Rebble is getting away with it is that the watch face developers aren’t big outfits with lawyers.
  - Brian_K_White 11mo ago
    Core doesn not have any rights to it. Pebble did, and Pebble threw it away. Rebble honors copyright by taking anything down that a rightsholder says to. That's all copyright grants, and they are doing it. If you own an app and don't want Rebble to redistribute it, they won't. Core has no claim to anything. This is CoreTube coming along years later "Hey I used to work for Youtube. Give me your copy of all those videos other people actaully made and own, that Youtube threw away years ago. Also give me your whole NewTube back end site you wrote from scratch because I want to make CoreTube now and I don't have my old Youtube stuff any more because I sold it." Like holy fucking are you kidding me?
    - Defletter 11mo ago
      You keep repeating that Core has no rights to that data, which is true, but it's a refutation to an argument no-one in this thread has made. What we're saying is that Rebble has no rights to that data either. Rebble's theft of that data was 'allowed' in the same way that Nickelback allow those "look at this graph" memes (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a7aqZyRuP1Q https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a7aqZyRuP1Q): it's copyright infringement but they don't care so they don't enforce their rights. It's not like trademarks with its use-it-or-lose-it clause. What I'm claiming here is that people who made apps and watch faces for Pebble didn't care (assuming they knew at all) because it was for preservation purposes. But now that Rebble is hoarding it to themselves, to the exclusion of Core, a revived Pebble company, those copyright holders may become less willing to tolerate the copyright infringement. And let's be clear: their rights do not begin and end with just getting it taken down.
      - Aeolun 11mo ago
        > And let's be clear: their rights do not begin and end with just getting it taken down. Unless you want to claim lost profit on a free watch face, or try to make the argument that the watch face you didn’t even remember existed until now being hosted on their service caused you some form of emotional distress, maybe they do.
      - Brian_K_White 11mo ago
        What? The original article and practically everyone in this thread has tried to make the argument that Core should have what they are asking for, which is the apps that they did not husband and everything else that they did not build. If Core were just building their own new app store from scratch there would be no discussion. The only reason there is even any discussion at all is because they are not doing that, they are trying to take over Rebbles app store. Rebble doesn't claim to own the apps. Rebble will even remove an app if you as the owner of an app tell them to. That means obviously they recognize who owns the apps, which is neither Rebble nor Core. Pebble might have had some claim once upon a time depending on how the terms for developers were written. Rebble didn't steal anything. So, what theft are you talking about? The apps were broadcast on a public server for anyone to download so the download wasn't a theft. They are redistributing those apps which they don't have any copyright to. But they are not selling the apps and they are respecting any authors directive to take an app down. They don't claim to have copyright except to their own new stuff. Pebble aren't "hoarding" anything "to exclusion" except things that are actually theirs. And yes that includes their downloads of old apps. They don't own the IP of the app, they own the copy they downloaded. If someone else wants a copy, they can ask nicely and accept no for an answer. If you actually own an app you can tell Rebble to desist, and they will. What Core wants is just outside of any of those scopes. Pebble voluntarily SOLD themselves. A former principle of Pebble has no tiniest right to anything at this point. They had rights, and they sold them for money. Now they have the money, not the apps, and for damned sure not the wholly new recreated services. They no longer have any claim to anything.
  - Aeolun 11mo ago
    > the only reason Rebble is getting away with it is that the watch face developers aren’t big outfits with lawyers. I’m rather inclined to think that most watch face developers are happy that someone is keeping their watch faces up. The amount of people that has a problem with it can be counted on one hand.
- IshKebab 11mo ago
  Yeah that's not how copyright works.
  - Brian_K_White 11mo ago
    Yes it is. I mean you gave no specifics so by all means, pick any statement and say what's incorrect about it.
    - renewiltord 11mo ago
      Are you confusing the DMCA safe harbor process with first party distribution of copyrighted material? I'm not an IP maximalist or anything but what you're saying is straightforwardly not the process for distribution of copyrighted material. It is not actually the case that I can legally distribute whatever I like so long as I stop when asked. These are US orgs so assuming US law here. Since you ask for specifics, this part is wrong: > Rebble clearly honors copyright, ex: removing apps on request of the author. Thst's the only right any copyright holder ever has is to say you can't redistribute copies. No. A rights holder can request that you pay for the distribution you already did. You'd then force litigation and it would cost the rights holder a lot for very little gain. Showing harm here would be hard so they don't do it but what you're saying is so far from correct it's unclear why you are insisting on specifics. It's not nuanced.
      - Brian_K_White 11mo ago
        It is not wrong. All I said was that Rebble has demonstrated that they respect copyright. Taking down an app on request means you acknowledge that the person making the request has the right to do so. It's true that a rightsholder could go further and sue for damages, and maybe even win. So what? The last time that happened, was Rebble actually found guilty of operating in bad faith? Were the damages significant or trivial? Did Rebble try to deny the authors rights? Unknown because it has never happened so it's immaterial. These imaginary possibles are possible but cannot be used as proof of Rebble behaving badly unless and until it actually happens and Rebble behaves badly or is found by a court to have been. What we DO have is that when an app author asserts their copyright, Rebble complies. I am not saying, and never did say that it's explicity legal to redistribute these apps without having first aquired the copyright from the authors.
- dmitrygr 11mo ago
  > Rebble clearly honors copyright, ex: removing apps on request of the author. Thst's the only right any copyright holder ever has is to say you can't redistribute copies. That is not at all how copyright works, like ... at all. If it worked as you claim, I could host a copy of disney movies on my site till disney asks me to stop, and then i stop doing that and walk away free. Clearly this is not at all how that would go down. No matter who abandons what, how, or why, for at least 90(?) years after a work was created in USA, it cannot be distributed without permission. End of story. If you were distributing my work, even if you stop when I ask, I can sue you and will win damages for every copy you distributed without permission. The damages would be multiplied by 3(?) if you were doing so knowingly (undeniable in this case)
chias 11mo ago
Not really relevant to the conversation, but: I stumbled across your watchface recently and absolutely love it. It's remarkable how much information density you've achieved while still maintaining "at a glance" clarity. Thank you for the work you put into it!
- tomaskafka 11mo ago
  Thank you!
krabizzwainch 11mo ago
I’m just curious, where has Rebble actually claimed ownership of your app binaries? I’d love to know if it’s something more concrete than “Eric said so.”