Good luck catching me, I'm behind 7 proxies.
Good luck catching me, I'm behind 7 proxies.
it's a clear anti-competive clause by a dominant market leader, such clauses tend to be void AFIK
Most people still haven’t heard of Anthropic/Claude.
(For the record, I use Claude code all day long. But it’s still pretty niche outside of programming.)
So the only thing you kind of need to figure out is VPN and ProtonVPN provides free vpn service which does include EU servers access as well
I wonder if Claude Code or these AI services block VPN access though.
If they do, ehh, just buy a EU cheap vps (hetzner my beloved) and call it a day plus you also get a free dev box which can also run your code 24x7 and other factors too.
I worked at a cloud company a while ago, and if free tier user requests came from another cloud providers IPs we’d have to double check it wasn’t fraud since that happened more often than residential ranges.
you can't violate a void clause in TOS or a contract
so you can't get a ban/termination for violating a void clause
they still can decide to not do business with you, after providing all service you already payed for
and that is _if_ you can decide to not to business with individuals without providing a reason, in certain situations companies can't do so (mainly related to unfair competition, market power abuse etc.). And this is the point where my knowledge details get to thin to really if/when/how this could or could not apply here.
> Sure you cannot be sued for writing clone, in any country.
in countries where such a clause is valid/not-void, you very well can be sued for using Claude Code to work on/develop e.g. Open Code...
> they still can decide to not do business with you
What's the difference?
> in countries where such a clause is valid/not-void, you very well can be sued for using Claude Code to work on/develop e.g. Open Code...
Has anyone in any country ever got successfully sued for violating ToS terms like these? Try to read any ToS and think that average use doesn't violate at least some of them. Even the EU's own site contains things like "including but not limited to".
yes, less private people but definitely companies
> What's the difference?
e.g. YT had been forced to reinstate (and not shadow ban) channels in the EU multiple times because judges ruled that terminations did not had legal basis and they don't have the right to arbitrarily refuse doing business with the people in question (for various reasons, including but not limited to it being clearly a retaliation for suing for right you have. Through the market dominant position of YT also played a non negligible role there).
Or in other words, by itself it might not mean much but in combination with other laws, especially iff claude code because the marked dominant AI editor.