Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Pebble, Rebble, and a path forward

ericmigi.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 258 posts

Re: Pebble, Rebble, and a path forward

#161

Post by margalabargala »

cweagans wrote: post #151
margalabargala wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I think you have a misunderstanding of how that works. In many cases, you need both the state and federal non-profit designation (i.e. a Michigan domestic non-profit corporation would not pay state income taxes on charitable income + that same corporation would need the 501c3 designation from the IRS to have the same benefit at the federal level). Yes, I'm aware. And since the lions share of taxes is often federal,…

> Why would they voluntarily give themselves federal tax exposure if they were able to avoid it? Right. That wouldn't be particularly smart, even to someone who doesn't fully understand the ins and outs of tax/corporate law. Is it possible that perhaps they _do_ have their 501c3 designation and are just communicating it poorly? Lack of positive confirmation that they are a 501c3 != positive confirmation that they are…

No, you misunderstand.

All 501c3 are publicly listed. They are not on the list. We have positive confirmation that they are not a 501c3, right now, nor have they ever been one.

The possibility suggested earlier was that they have applied but are not yet a 501c3. I lack positive confirmation that they have never attempted to become a 501c3.

Since it has been two years since they became a nonprofit, I think that implies they either have no intention of becoming a 501c3 or else tried to become one and failed because they did not meet the criteria. But technically it is possible that it is just delayed.

Re: Pebble, Rebble, and a path forward

#162

Post by margalabargala »

c22 wrote: post #146
apparent wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If they're not soliciting donations from you I'm not sure why you'd care about their federal tax status. Well, if they portray themselves as a "nonprofit" then most people who read that will think they are a 501c3, which is almost always the case. I don't know why they don't qualify for that status (if they don't), but it's possible that it's a reason I would care about when deciding whom to side with on issues lik…

Looking over Michigan's Nonprofit Corporation Act it seems a Domestic Non-Profit Corporation would meet the IRS 501c3 requirements. The act even borrows definitions from IRS Publication 501. It looks like Michigan Domestic Non-Profit Corporations cannot allow their proceeds to benefit private parties. So they are a nonprofit if that helps you pick a side. It seems like an asinine point to pivot on, though.

> It seems like an asinine point to pivot on, though.

Whether or not they are a nonprofit is not a point I care about on its own.

What is a point to pivot on, is if they claim to be a nonprofit, but make that claim in a misleading way.

It is highly unusual to be a 501c3-compatible state nonprofit but not actually bother to become a 501c3. You're essentially opting to pay federal taxes unnecessarily. It makes one wonder why.

Re: Pebble, Rebble, and a path forward

#163

Post by Aeolun »

philipwhiuk wrote: post #116
Brian_K_White wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

> 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 downloa…

> 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.

Re: Pebble, Rebble, and a path forward

#164

Post by margalabargala »

renewiltord wrote: post #152
margalabargala wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are a lot, but most of them are extremely narrowly defined. There are not many into which Rebble could fit. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/501(c)_organization#Types

Rust Foundation is pretty reputable and is a 501c6 and they say they're a non profit

Sure, Rust Foundation fits the criteria of a 501c6. It is not itself a commercial enterprise, but is an advocacy body for the Rust language and its users.

Rebble is not that. One of the key defining features of a 501c6 is that it exists to support other businesses that are associated, like a Chamber of Commerce. If Rebble did this then this whole issue we're commenting on the thread for wouldn't be an issue.

Re: Pebble, Rebble, and a path forward

#165

Post by Aeolun »

Defletter wrote: post #150
Brian_K_White wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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 ): it's copyright infringement but they don't care s…

> 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.

Re: Pebble, Rebble, and a path forward

#166

Post by Brian_K_White »

Defletter wrote: post #150
Brian_K_White wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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 ): it's copyright infringement but they don't care s…

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.

Re: Pebble, Rebble, and a path forward

#167

Post by mrlambchop »

renewiltord wrote: post #152
margalabargala wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are a lot, but most of them are extremely narrowly defined. There are not many into which Rebble could fit. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/501(c)_organization#Types

Rust Foundation is pretty reputable and is a 501c6 and they say they're a non profit

Also well funded. They would struggle to raise as much in terms of contributions IMO if not providing tax relief status to their contributors.

Re: Pebble, Rebble, and a path forward

#168

Post by cweagans »

margalabargala wrote: post #161
cweagans wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Why would they voluntarily give themselves federal tax exposure if they were able to avoid it? Right. That wouldn't be particularly smart, even to someone who doesn't fully understand the ins and outs of tax/corporate law. Is it possible that perhaps they _do_ have their 501c3 designation and are just communicating it poorly? Lack of positive confirmation that they are a 501c3 != positive confirmation that they are…

No, you misunderstand. All 501c3 are publicly listed. They are not on the list. We have positive confirmation that they are not a 501c3, right now, nor have they ever been one. The possibility suggested earlier was that they have applied but are not yet a 501c3. I lack positive confirmation that they have never attempted to become a 501c3. Since it has been two years since they became a nonprofit, I think that implie…

Ah, I see. I don't think I realized that 501c3 are publicly listed and that we do have positive confirmation that they aren't on that list. Thanks for clarifying.

Re: Pebble, Rebble, and a path forward

#169

Post by carlosjobim »

radlad wrote: post #16
renewiltord wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not clear why the community refuses to make the app store archive public. It's an archive of other developers' work. Doesn't make any sense to say "you can only get these from the Rebble website". Just do requester-pays on the S3 bucket.

The concern is that it will be imported into a separate app store owned by Pebble, which Pebble will lock Rebble out of (i.e. block scraping and refuse to release this data), and then if Pebble goes bust again, Rebble is left with less than they started with. As I understand it, they almost came to an agreement on this: > We want to give Core’s users access to the Rebble App Store. (We thought we agreed on that last…

> Rebble is left with less than they started with.

Is data removed from their server when somebody else copies it? That's a new computing paradigm in that case.

Re: Pebble, Rebble, and a path forward

#170

Post by Defletter »

Brian_K_White wrote: post #166
Defletter wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ): it's copyright infringement but they don't care s…

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, the…

That's because you have incorrectly inferred from our statements saying that Core should get the data, or rather that the data should be publicly archived, as us saying that Core has a right to the data. You are again constructing a strawman to argue against.

EDIT: Also, if Rebble scraping it from Pebble isn't theft, then neither would Core scraping it from Rebble. Problem solved.

Post reply on HN