Re:“We have information that Moonshot distilled Fable for th...
by Bratmon on Wednesday July 22, 2026 @06:09PM
(#49014145)
But surely at least one of the websites Anthropic scraped to make Claude had a ToS forbidding automatic access?
Why is Anthropic's ToS any more binding than that of a rabidly-anti-ai literature blog with 50 readers?
Re:“We have information that Moonshot distilled Fable for th...
by perching_aix on Wednesday July 22, 2026 @06:49PM
(#49014533)
Do feel free to read the court documents to find out and let us know.
> Why is Anthropic's ToS any more binding than that of a rabidly-anti-ai literature blog with 50 readers?
Although I will say, this whole comparison stuff really doesn't seem to be your thing; might impede your analysis quite a lot: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49013148
Maybe ask Claude?
Re:“We have information that Moonshot distilled Fable for th...
by queenkjuul on Wednesday July 22, 2026 @08:41PM
(#49015425)
> Why is Anthropic's ToS any more binding than that of a rabidly-anti-ai literature blog with 50 readers?
I mean i know you know the answer: anthropic is a corporation with lawyers on retainer, and that's really all that matters
Re:“We have information that Moonshot distilled Fable for th...
by skybrian on Wednesday July 22, 2026 @09:15PM
(#49015636)
One reason is that they might not have scraped it themselves, so if there was a ToS, it was someone else who broke it. For example, see:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Pile_(dataset)
Another reason is that if you can download a web page without agreeing to a ToS, I'm not sure that counts as one?
Anthropic's own copyright infringement could apparently be forgiven for 1.5B USD after all, so maybe there's a price that breaking the distillation clause for is acceptable too. Or some other arrangement.