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

GitHub has DMCA'd nearly all forks of the official Claude-code repo

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 56 posts

Re: GitHub has DMCA'd nearly all forks of the official Claude-code repo

#41

Post by bakugo »

nslsm wrote: post #10
robotswantdata wrote: post #9

Anthropic when they scrape the entire internet without permission: I sleep Anthropic when their own source code ends up on GitHub: Real s**

You are comparing Anthropic obtaining public data from the Internet to Anthropic leaking their trade secrets and having them distributed by third parties.

Most of that "public data from the Internet" is subject to licenses, yet their entire business model is built on top of a legally grey algorithm that ingests that licensed code and spits it back out without the license. They have no legal right to any of that code, they're just getting away with it because laws are for the poor.

If you believe any data that is publicly accessible is fair game regardless of licenses, then by that definition, Claude Code's source code is included.

Re: GitHub has DMCA'd nearly all forks of the official Claude-code repo

#43

Post by khalic »

emaro wrote: post #19

Ironic. Even more so since it seems like in general LLM output doesn't seem to be proteced by copyright in the first place. And since Claude code is entirely written by Claude code, it shouldn't be proteced as well.

What's this armchair lawyer interpretation I'm hearing these last weeks, "LLM output doesn't seem protected by copyright"? It's extremely clear, from jurisprudence, that the level of human intervention in the process is what determines if it's copyrightable. This blanket statement is sensationalist, to say the least.

Re: GitHub has DMCA'd nearly all forks of the official Claude-code repo

#44

Post by 0x3f »

hmry wrote: post #37
_pdp_ wrote: post #8

What's the point? Anthropic can simply play it cool and, I don't know, open source the thing? It is not like claude code is that complex and interesting. Sure there are some questionable stuff in there but it is not that controversial.

The most controversial part is that they wrote a TUI in ReactJS, but they don't try to keep that part secret, they brag about it. :^)

Yeah as much as I avoid OpenAI for [reasons], the Rust TUI was really the move. Claude Code is a mess.

Re: GitHub has DMCA'd nearly all forks of the official Claude-code repo

#45

Post by khalic »

hmry wrote: post #37
_pdp_ wrote: post #8

What's the point? Anthropic can simply play it cool and, I don't know, open source the thing? It is not like claude code is that complex and interesting. Sure there are some questionable stuff in there but it is not that controversial.

The most controversial part is that they wrote a TUI in ReactJS, but they don't try to keep that part secret, they brag about it. :^)

Some are stuck in 2010s, where people thought that JS was turning into a lingua franca. As usual, such delusions are costing us some pretty heavy price. People seem to now accept crappy, laggy UIs "because it makes business sense", completely ignoring that their business _is_ providing a seamless experience. ugh sorry,

Re: GitHub has DMCA'd nearly all forks of the official Claude-code repo

#46

Post by lifthrasiir »

emaro wrote: post #19

Ironic. Even more so since it seems like in general LLM output doesn't seem to be proteced by copyright in the first place. And since Claude code is entirely written by Claude code, it shouldn't be proteced as well.

A common misunderstanding AFAIK. It is true that Claude, not being a person, can't be assigned a copyright by itself, but a person that interacts with Claude generally can. The famous monkey selfie case [1] was different mainly because the human "photographer" had absolutely no role in the creation of work. Most LLM uses don't fall into such ambiguity.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monkey_selfie_copyright_disput...

Re: GitHub has DMCA'd nearly all forks of the official Claude-code repo

#47

Post by occz »

nslsm wrote: post #10
robotswantdata wrote: post #9

Anthropic when they scrape the entire internet without permission: I sleep Anthropic when their own source code ends up on GitHub: Real s**

You are comparing Anthropic obtaining public data from the Internet to Anthropic leaking their trade secrets and having them distributed by third parties.

Books3 is public data on the internet in the same way that the Claude code source code is public data on the internet.

Except Anthropic published the Claude code source code themselves, while Books3 was not published by their original authors.

Re: GitHub has DMCA'd nearly all forks of the official Claude-code repo

#48

Post by mhitza »

lifthrasiir wrote: post #46
emaro wrote: post #19

Ironic. Even more so since it seems like in general LLM output doesn't seem to be proteced by copyright in the first place. And since Claude code is entirely written by Claude code, it shouldn't be proteced as well.

A common misunderstanding AFAIK. It is true that Claude, not being a person, can't be assigned a copyright by itself, but a person that interacts with Claude generally can. The famous monkey selfie case [1] was different mainly because the human "photographer" had absolutely no role in the creation of work. Most LLM uses don't fall into such ambiguity. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monkey_selfie_copyright_disput.…

I've heard and read it from various sources already that output isn't copyrightable, and hinted as such recently in a comment. Now I've went to look up some sources.

> Copyright does not extend to purely AI-generated material, or material where there is insufficient human control over the expressive elements.

> Whether human contributions to AI-generated outputs are sufficient to constitute authorship must be analyzed on a case-by-case basis.

PDF https://www.copyright.gov/ai/Copyright-and-Artificial-Intell...

Post reply on HN