341–350 of 418 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I’m sorry but you’re demonstrably incorrect. Please so demonstrate?
I mean just use them and compare, the gap is obvious.
If I can do this, then a company that wants to sell local models seriously could do it too.
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…
> The API has a very clear ToS prohibiting ... What is the relevance? If I understand correctly, OpenCode, i.e. the creator of the tool, does not use Anthropic's API. Their users do. I am unsure where the connection can be made between the users violating some terms of service and a maker of a tool.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
By definition, it is exactly a law. It's known as business law. The ToS is a business contract which you must agree to if you wish to use the service. Violating terms of service is literally a breach of contract.
How can you breach a contract if you are not a party to a contract? OpenCode is not using any Anthropic services, they are just publishing some source code that seems (obligatory IANAL) to be protected speech under the First Amendment [0], if this legal argument is happening in American jurisdiction. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_as_speech
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And what relation does Anthropic or Claude have woth the name Clawdbot
It could reasonably cause confusion in the marketplace. Again, IANAL. If you wanted to find out the actual legal arguments, you could release and promote software for white-collar workers called Mycrosoft Offyce and I am sure you will get official legal answers from Microsoft's counsel.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yep, well said and great, sharp explanation. I think we can attribute a bunch of consternation here to drift between assumed and actual licensing terms. The actual licensing terms for Claude Code expressly prohibit use of the product outside of the Claude Code harness. If you want Opus outside of CC, the API is available for your use anytime. Some percentage of the community seems to assume their Claude Code subscrip…
I think this is disingenuous, people want to be able to use a tool that they pay for to do useful work on their own terms because they payed for it and don’t see the differential pricing model offered by Anthropic as legitimate.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How can you breach a contract if you are not a party to a contract? OpenCode is not using any Anthropic services, they are just publishing some source code that seems (obligatory IANAL) to be protected speech under the First Amendment [0], if this legal argument is happening in American jurisdiction. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_as_speech
Interesting point. I've been looking into a similar issue recently, and for example LinkedIn won a lawsuit against the analytics company hiQ because they violated their ToS for scraping their website. And I think they also never technically had a direct contract they'd breach. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HiQ_Labs_v._LinkedIn
People (or company? not sure) don't make any requests to Anthropic themselves. They just publish code that can make such requests.
I don't think that there is a legal precedent that would make publishing code that can do scraping illegal.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Interesting point. I've been looking into a similar issue recently, and for example LinkedIn won a lawsuit against the analytics company hiQ because they violated their ToS for scraping their website. And I think they also never technically had a direct contract they'd breach. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HiQ_Labs_v._LinkedIn
Yes, but I think that there is a big difference. In the case you linked, hiQ were actually doing the scraping themselves. People (or company? not sure) don't make any requests to Anthropic themselves. They just publish code that can make such requests. I don't think that there is a legal precedent that would make publishing code that can do scraping illegal.
This would essentially take us back to what online services were 20 years ago, by outlawing a business model that relies on providers controlling stuff on users' devices. What's on the server is the company's business, what's on the client is the user's, and the boundary is clear. On the one hand, services that would persist would likely no longer have free tiers (which would essentially mean free lunch for customers); since it's a commercial service run by a company that has costs, it's just normal to pay for it as a user, there's no free beer anywhere. On the other hand, by paying for something, you'd get that thing and nothing else, as there's always going to be a client that doesn't leak data not necessary for the service to perform whatever you paid for, or impose arbitrary restrictions on its use. If any, these need to be server-side.