51–60 of 418 posts
Seems fine to me. Why do people think they are entitled to use heavily subsidized services outside of the tools it's intended to work with per terms.
Was it always clear that you're not supposed to use the Claude API this way?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is not my impression, could you explain what you're talking about?
Ever since the shutdown of the side-load they've been pretty vocally anti-anthropic on twitter. Paranoid that anthropic is going to torpedo them via some backdoor now that they own bun, insinuating that anthropic shut down the auth from a position of weakness since OpenCode is a superior product, etc. The thing is OpenCode IS a great product, I'm not sure it's "superior", but unfortunately the way things are evolving…
https://github.com/anomalyco/opencode/issues/10416
- their stance on privacy
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The API has a very clear ToS prohibiting third-party client usage with the heavily subsidized Claude.ai subscription plans. Anthropic's right to reject or block that traffic, as well as to ban users who attempt this, is well-protected by the ToS those users neglected to read. Regarding the legal demands here, anyone can issue anyone else a cease and desist order at any time, for anything, in the USA. The demands do n…
I thought TOS grants Anthropic the right to stop providing the service to a user, not go after them legally.
Bad analogy but the getaway driver doesn’t need to enter the bank to be guilty in the robbery.
[flagged]
I've said it before and I'll say it again. The people mad about this feel they are entitled to the heavily subsidized usage in any context they want, not in the context explicitly allowed by the subsidizer. It's kind of like a new restaurant started handing out coupons for "90% off", wanting to attract diners to the restaurant, customers started coming in and ordering bulk meals then immediately packaging them in tup…
This argument has been decapitated countless times already on HN. Anthropic already enforce usage limits for everyone . If those limits are higher than what they want users to actually consume, that's Anthropic's problem. This move is anti-competitive and Anthropic knows it. They're hurriedly trying to lock the gates and lay landmines behind everyone after a massive surge of new subscribers so that they're stuck usin…
I mean, OpenCode is the one changing their app here. So it kinda seems like it's actually everyone else's problem.
Under what law can Anthropic force OpenCode to do this? Surely it's not illegal to publish code that interacts with an API that's open for everyone to see?
Terms or Service
Code is one thing. Using API key is entirely different thing.
This and threatening OpenClaw (now at OpenAI), Anthropic really on a roll making friends in Open Source. Previously discussed I think: Anthropic Explicitly Blocking OpenCode (173 points, 157 comments) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46625918
This and threatening OpenClaw (now at OpenAI), Anthropic really on a roll making friends in Open Source. Previously discussed I think: Anthropic Explicitly Blocking OpenCode (173 points, 157 comments) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46625918
I’m not seeing the open source connection at all? Anthropic sells a service that bundles server and client. They are not wild about people taking their server part and using their own clients because the business model relies on both client behaviors (Claude code does a lot of work to achieve > 95% cache hit rates; third party clients likely don’t) and flywheel of usage data. If Microsoft went after third party clien…
Typically services that try to gatekeep standard http don't get very far with the kind of people that like to modify their software.
This and threatening OpenClaw (now at OpenAI), Anthropic really on a roll making friends in Open Source. Previously discussed I think: Anthropic Explicitly Blocking OpenCode (173 points, 157 comments) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46625918
IIRC it was called Clawdbot when Anthropic complained. IANAL but I believe the holder of a trademark is obligated to defend it against infringement. Hard to say that Clawdbot was not potentially infringing, given its purpose. It's not clear how much leeway Anthropic had given his initial choice of name.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The API has a very clear ToS prohibiting third-party client usage with the heavily subsidized Claude.ai subscription plans. Anthropic's right to reject or block that traffic, as well as to ban users who attempt this, is well-protected by the ToS those users neglected to read. Regarding the legal demands here, anyone can issue anyone else a cease and desist order at any time, for anything, in the USA. The demands do n…
I thought TOS grants Anthropic the right to stop providing the service to a user, not go after them legally.
More broadly, you do not need to establish any kind of contractual right to "go after" anyone legally, that's not how civil law works. A cease and desist letter isn't even really legal action, it's a threat of legal action, but even then, Anthropic doesn't need your permission to sue you, just like you don't need Anthropic's permission to sue them.
If you think that inside the U.S., you have some kind of legal immunity to or protection from cease and desist letters or lawsuits from any company, for any reason¹, you would largely be mistaken. If this is important to you, you might want to talk to a lawyer.
¹ Some states have anti-SLAPP statutes that offer limited protections in certain context, but this isn't applicable in the context of this example between Anthropic and AnomalyCo.