diff --git a/2025/06/2025-06-18-anthropic-counternotice.md b/2025/06/2025-06-18-anthropic-counternotice.md new file mode 100644 index 000000000..cdf09d25e --- /dev/null +++ b/2025/06/2025-06-18-anthropic-counternotice.md @@ -0,0 +1,51 @@ +**Are you the owner of the content that has been disabled, or authorized to act on the owner’s behalf?** + +Yes, I am authorized to act on the content owner's behalf. + +**Please describe the nature of your content ownership or authorization to act on the owner's behalf.** + +I was sent a copyright notice alleging that someone "source mapped", anthropic's claude code product, which I assume they mean that the code was either decompiled or reverse engineered. +https://github.com/github/dmca/blob/master/2025/04/2025-04-28-anthropic.md + +Nonetheless I am volunteering on behalf of [private] a [private] non profit that performs AI / ML research, to make 3d animated avatars for education, and in [private] this is not considered copyright infringement, nonetheless I will go on to discuss the US copyright law, because the tasks that I have been working on, is to create a domain specific first order logic of the entire law and case law, because it has been my intention to file mass torts against all tech companies for their DEI activities, and I am VERY well versed in the copyright law and the first amendment, and have read every single act of congress, treaty and history book on the subject already, and it is arguable that the current copyright act is unconstitutional as applied to the first amendment, given the "text, history, and tradition" of article 1 section 8 clause 3, predicated upon to "advance the useful arts and sciences" + +Discussion: + +The central nexus of the copyright act is, the "idea / expression" dichotomy, that "ideas" are protected by patents, and that "expressions" are protected by copyright. Moreover assuming that the works that were created by Anthropic are most likely created by AI, the copyright act has stated that there is no copyright protections for AI created works, so I am doubtful that this particular work even qualifies for copyright to begin with. Moreover in the case Oracle v. Google, with regards to the dispute over the java JVM, Google's use of the work was considered to be non infringing. Lastly the is the nature of the use of the work, and whether it replaces the original work in the market. The purpose of the work, as was put into the documentation, was that I was going to create a vastly different derivative work, based on my own architecture principals, which you would have seen if you would have not sent a mass DMCA complaint. Compliance with 17 USC 512(f) when considering fair use, is not an "optional" because you have many many forks of the same project, and therefore if you take this to court I will seek damages not only for copyright abuse (see e.g. Lentz v. Universal), in addition to seeking damages for the use of DEI programs, and I may also look to other things like Qui Tam under the false claims act if you have government contracts, and violations of dual use export controls, because I am quite frankly not a person to be trifled with, and only those who are without sin should cast the first stone. + +I get the "doth protest too much" vibes, about why you would need to protect the IP of some console program that uses your compute credits, and I suspect that you are trying to cover your ass with regards to things like privacy and security backdoors or consumer protections. Moreover sending me a copyright notice accomplishes absolutely nothing, I will still release the "swissknife" project, which will be hopefully much better in conceptualization, and i suggest if you don't like that, you come back with the patent claim, and otherwise that you can fork what I make because it will be AGPL licensed, and you can use it to sell more compute credits. Otherwise I literally have no money for you to come after me with, but you are a giant money cow, so I encourage you to think twice and get someone who has 20 years experience to come talk to me, because I am loathe to deal with morons. + +**What files were taken down? Please provide URLs for each file, or if the entire repository, the repository’s URL.** + +https://github.com/endomorphosis/swissknife (gone) + +[private] +[private] +(My legal datasets) + +https://www.copyright.gov/ai/ +(copyright and AI law) + +**Do you want to make changes to your repository or do you want to dispute the notice?** + +Dispute the notice. + +**Is there anything else you think we should know about why you believe the material was removed as a result of a mistake?** + +yes, because they did not demonstrate with particularity, what expression is inside of the repository, with a corresponding expression that is owned by them, and they have not demonstrated that their work was not generated by AI, and thus ineligible for copyright protection. + +**I swear, under penalty of perjury, that I have a good-faith belief that the material was removed or disabled as a result of a mistake or misidentification of the material to be removed or disabled.** + +**I consent to the jurisdiction of Federal District Court for the judicial district in which my address is located (if in the United States, otherwise the Northern District of California where GitHub is located), and I will accept service of process from the person who provided the DMCA notification or an agent of such person.** + +**Please confirm that you have you have read our Guide to Submitting a DMCA Counter Notice.** + +**So that the complaining party can get back to you, please provide both your telephone number and physical address.** + +[private] +[private] +[private] + +**Please type your full legal name below to sign this request.** + +[private]