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

Alibaba to ban Claude Code in workplace over alleged backdoor risks, source says

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 299 posts

Re: Alibaba to ban Claude Code in workplace over alleged backdoor risks, source says

#151

Post by bee_rider »

mapontosevenths wrote: post #141
andersonpico wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But distribution isn't the only crime here, obtaining the material illegally apparently is a crime too. And the damn robot can also spit me harry Potter verbatim so I don't know how it would also not be distribution?

If I read Harry Potter I will remember some parts verbatim. Others I will tecall in only an abridged and lossy way. Does that make my brain copyright infringement? Does Disney now own all my output forever because some small part of me now has Harry Potter embedded?

Does the law really not distinguish between mechanical processing of data, and humans learning from it? It seems surprising to be if every person who read a textbook is copyright infringing. It also seems surprising if something like a lossy compression algorithm is enough to protect you from copyright law.

Somewhere between the two a line must be drawn… where we’d want to put that line, I guess, if up for quibbling. But it doesn’t seem obvious to me.

Re: Alibaba to ban Claude Code in workplace over alleged backdoor risks, source says

#152

Post by [deleted] »

hydrox24 wrote: post #145
root-parent wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Now you just have to explain this: "Anthropic settles with authors in first-of-its-kind AI copyright infringement lawsuit" - https://www.npr.org/2025/09/05/nx-s1-5529404/anthropic-settl...

> "The training use was a fair use," [the judge] wrote. "The use of the books at issue to train Claude and its precursors was exceedingly transformative." > However, the judge ruled that Anthropic's use of millions of pirated books to build its models – books that websites such as Library Genesis (LibGen) and Pirate Library Mirror (PiLiMi) copied without getting the authors' consent or giving them compensation – was…

[deleted]

Re: Alibaba to ban Claude Code in workplace over alleged backdoor risks, source says

#153

Post by JsonDemWitOster »

mapontosevenths wrote: post #141
andersonpico wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But distribution isn't the only crime here, obtaining the material illegally apparently is a crime too. And the damn robot can also spit me harry Potter verbatim so I don't know how it would also not be distribution?

If I read Harry Potter I will remember some parts verbatim. Others I will tecall in only an abridged and lossy way. Does that make my brain copyright infringement? Does Disney now own all my output forever because some small part of me now has Harry Potter embedded?

This analogy is disingenuous because by comparing the human brain to the machine, it ignores _scale_. Scale is absolutely important in copyright law. As a matter of fact, copyright law is among the various profound impacts of the---wait for it---printing press, a _machine_ for the mass production of books.

Re: Alibaba to ban Claude Code in workplace over alleged backdoor risks, source says

#154

Post by UqWBcuFx6NV4r »

codedokode wrote: post #102
matheusmoreira wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Remember how Kim Dotcom got destroyed for criminal copyright infringement? One would think the big tech CEOs would face the same fate, that police officers would rappel down helicopters, storm their mansions and bring them out in cuffs. Instead the AI companies reached these absurd settlements with publishers that made a mockery out of all the previous copyright enforcement victims.

Exactly. If a rich corporation downloads and uses pirated content without paying, why should ordinary person pay for movies and music instead of downloading them for free?

Intellectually dishonest comment. Kim Dotcom got done for illegal distribution. It’s not about “illegally downloading”. You can pretend all you want that it’s the same thing as these AI companies, but it’s not. It certainly very well may be immoral, but to act like copyright law as it currently stands in spirit or in reality covers this scenario we’ve found ourselves in, is a complete and utter lie.

Re: Alibaba to ban Claude Code in workplace over alleged backdoor risks, source says

#155

Post by lelandfe »

mapontosevenths wrote: post #141
andersonpico wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But distribution isn't the only crime here, obtaining the material illegally apparently is a crime too. And the damn robot can also spit me harry Potter verbatim so I don't know how it would also not be distribution?

If I read Harry Potter I will remember some parts verbatim. Others I will tecall in only an abridged and lossy way. Does that make my brain copyright infringement? Does Disney now own all my output forever because some small part of me now has Harry Potter embedded?

Further, why has my brain's searing remake of Snow White as a gritty murder mystery gone unscathed by Disney lawyers? Surely their negligence has diluted the Snow White trademark!

Re: Alibaba to ban Claude Code in workplace over alleged backdoor risks, source says

#156

Post by buran77 »

mapontosevenths wrote: post #141
andersonpico wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But distribution isn't the only crime here, obtaining the material illegally apparently is a crime too. And the damn robot can also spit me harry Potter verbatim so I don't know how it would also not be distribution?

If I read Harry Potter I will remember some parts verbatim. Others I will tecall in only an abridged and lossy way. Does that make my brain copyright infringement? Does Disney now own all my output forever because some small part of me now has Harry Potter embedded?

Can you remember every part? Can you do this for every book in a library? Can you remember all that forever?

If you just ignore anything that's inconvenient for your argument, you can make any argument you want.

Re: Alibaba to ban Claude Code in workplace over alleged backdoor risks, source says

#157

Post by matheusmoreira »

UqWBcuFx6NV4r wrote: post #154
codedokode wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly. If a rich corporation downloads and uses pirated content without paying, why should ordinary person pay for movies and music instead of downloading them for free?

Intellectually dishonest comment. Kim Dotcom got done for illegal distribution. It’s not about “illegally downloading”. You can pretend all you want that it’s the same thing as these AI companies, but it’s not. It certainly very well may be immoral, but to act like copyright law as it currently stands in spirit or in reality covers this scenario we’ve found ourselves in, is a complete and utter lie.

> It’s not about “illegally downloading”.

It absolutely is. That's textbook copyright infringement. Doing it for commercial purposes elevates it to criminal copyright infringement.

Re: Alibaba to ban Claude Code in workplace over alleged backdoor risks, source says

#158

Post by vrganj »

kataklasm wrote: post #65
vrganj wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Anthropic clearly doesn't respect other people's IP, it's real rich that they now insist on theirs being worthy of protection. Fwiw, I think the concept of IP in general is counter to human progress.

The practical implementation of IP? Sure, that's debatable. But the concept of IP is rooted in favoring progress. The thought process being, that if one's intellectual work can be copied and reused and modified and what not without issues, why should anyone invent things anymore? Just wait for the next person to do it and then copy their work, that's way less effort than inventing things yourself. IP aims to protect…

The Soviet Union, for all it's faults, had a fair bunch of scientific and technological breakthroughs without relying on IP.

Sure, one person gets rewarded more with the IP system. But at the same time, that breakthrough then can't be built upon by others.

Overall, I think it does more harm than good because of how it monopolizes technologies and ossifies development.

I think free sharing of knowledge will always beat intellectual stinginess.

Re: Alibaba to ban Claude Code in workplace over alleged backdoor risks, source says

#159

Post by hartbook »

mapontosevenths wrote: post #141
andersonpico wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But distribution isn't the only crime here, obtaining the material illegally apparently is a crime too. And the damn robot can also spit me harry Potter verbatim so I don't know how it would also not be distribution?

If I read Harry Potter I will remember some parts verbatim. Others I will tecall in only an abridged and lossy way. Does that make my brain copyright infringement? Does Disney now own all my output forever because some small part of me now has Harry Potter embedded?

yes it is if you write it down from memory and sell it. Exactly what LLM companies do

Re: Alibaba to ban Claude Code in workplace over alleged backdoor risks, source says

#160

Post by gruez »

314 wrote: post #106
root-parent wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Remember Aaron Swartz who did something that just pales compared to what Dario Amodei, Zuckerberg-Mr-Torrent and Sam Altman did.

But Aaron Swartz did it for the benefit of other people. These fine people did it to uphold american values and enrich themselves at the expense of others. The law is clearly on their side.

This but unironically. "did it for the benefit of other people" is redistribution, which is straightforward copyright infringement, even if you think it's a laudable act. AI training was the reverse, because courts have so far ruled is fair use. When AI companies were engaging in piracy, they were sanctioned as well.
Post reply on HN