I continue to be most surprised by how publicly Anthropic is boasting about how Claude Code is writing all lines of computer code at Anthropic.
Here’s Claude Code head Boris Cherny recently stating:
We use Claude for literally everything.
Boris cherny
There’s no more manually written code anywhere at the company [Anthropic].
All of the SQL is written by models.
Everything is just built by the models.
As I explain in my forthcoming essay, copyright protection for a computer program will likely decrease as the amount of computer code written by AI increases.
And copyright may be forfeited when all lines of code are AI-written aka “vibe coded”–the scenario that Cherny suggests is taking place right now at Anthropic for all of its programs.
In my essay, I contend that authorship may still lie if humans make an original selection and arrangement of elements in the program that was “100% vibe coded.” But this is an unsettled legal question that the courts will soon have to address.
So does copyright really matter for computer programs?
Some people have asked me if it really matters that Anthropic could be killing its own copyrights. They would still be able to invoke trade secret protection for their confidential source code, right?
Not so fast. Copyright is a key component of protection for computer programs. Just last month, Anthropic inadvertently disclosed source code for one of its programs — and then invoked copyrights to send DMCA notices demanding that third-party websites take down the allegedly infringing copies.
To send a DMCA, one must swear under the penalty of perjury:
(A)To be effective under this subsection, a notification of claimed infringement must be a written communication provided to the designated agent of a service provider that includes substantially the following:
(i) A physical or electronic signature of a person authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed.
(ii) Identification of the copyrighted work claimed to have been infringed, or, if multiple copyrighted works at a single online site are covered by a single notification, a representative list of such works at that site.
(iii) Identification of the material that is claimed to be infringing or to be the subject of infringing activity and that is to be removed or access to which is to be disabled, and information reasonably sufficient to permit the service provider to locate the material.
(iv) Information reasonably sufficient to permit the service provider to contact the complaining party, such as an address, telephone number, and, if available, an electronic mail address at which the complaining party may be contacted.
(v) A statement that the complaining party has a good faith belief that use of the material in the manner complained of is not authorized by the copyright owner, its agent, or the law.
(vi) A statement that the information in the notification is accurate, and under penalty of perjury, that the complaining party is authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed.
So, if Anthropic had no copyrights for its programs, DMCA notices would not be something Anthropic could even send.
So, yes, copyright still matters.
Though unintended, Claude Code may turn out to be a copyright killer.
Related Stories