用戶與 Anthropic：11.4 million 個帳戶與數碼財產權

Human vs. Anthropic

From the "Intellectual Property Law" series

11.4 million blocked accounts.

11.4 million personal digital archives potentially affected.

11.4 million potential legal disputes.

These numbers raise an uncomfortable question about the relationship between artificial intelligence companies and the people who use their services.

The figure of 11.4 million accounts has been cited in discussions of account restrictions. It should not be interpreted as a verified count of lost archives or established legal violations.

But the underlying problem deserves serious attention.

A confrontation over digital ownership

Confrontation.

That is the word we choose to describe what is happening.

On one side stands Anthropic, a private company entitled to establish and enforce its own terms of service.

Anthropic's terms generally recognize users' rights to outputs generated through its services, subject to applicable conditions.

On the other side stands the individual who has spent months developing projects, writing documents, creating code, and building a personal digital archive using Claude.

Then the account is suspended.

And the user may discover that access to years of work has disappeared.

Who owns digital content if its creator cannot access, use, or retrieve it?

We are not challenging the right to suspend accounts

Let us be clear.

We are not arguing that every decision by Anthropic to terminate a service agreement is unlawful.

A company may have legitimate reasons to restrict access to its services.

But terminating a service agreement and preventing a person from retrieving their own digital content are two different issues.

Our concern is the second.

We believe users should retain meaningful rights to possess, use, and dispose of their digital materials, even after access to an AI service has been terminated.

These are fundamental principles associated with ownership.

The precise legal rights depend on the applicable jurisdiction, the nature of the content, and the contractual relationship.

Nevertheless, we believe that account suspension should not automatically result in the loss of access to a user's digital archive.

What should a complete digital archive contain?

A simple text export is not always enough.

A developer may have created dozens of interconnected projects. A researcher may have organized hundreds of conversations, documents, and working materials.

Without the original structure, reconstructing that work may become extremely difficult.

We believe users should be entitled to request an archive that preserves, wherever technically possible:

• The original organization of projects and folders.
• Conversations and associated materials.
• Files created or uploaded by the user.
• Relationships between projects and their contents.
• Information necessary to identify and verify the exported materials.

A meaningful digital export should preserve not only the content but also the structure needed to understand and use it.

Why this matters for developers

Consider a developer who uses Claude to work on a software project for several months.

The account is suddenly suspended.

Even if the developer retains intellectual property rights to the code, those rights may be of limited value if important project materials are inaccessible.

This distinction matters.

Ownership of digital content and the ability to retrieve that content are not the same thing.

At Ecode, we work on a related aspect of digital ownership: helping developers register cryptographic fingerprints of their code with trusted timestamps.

Such records can help document the existence of a particular file at a particular time.

They cannot restore an inaccessible Claude archive.

But both issues are connected by a broader principle: individuals should have reliable ways to document their digital work and protect their interests in it.

11.4 million questions about digital rights

11.4 million accounts reportedly blocked.

How many users still need access to their projects?

How many have been unable to obtain a complete archive?

How many may have grounds to pursue legal remedies?

These questions deserve answers.

As Anthropic faces growing public scrutiny and discussion of a potential IPO, we believe it is especially important to address what happens to user-created content after account suspension.

We want to hear Anthropic's position on meaningful access to personal digital archives.

We are collecting complaints and examining legal options

Aimperia and the Ecode project are collecting reports from users whose Claude accounts have been suspended.

We are examining the circumstances of these cases and assessing the possibility of a collective legal action to protect users' rights to digital content.

No conclusion has yet been reached about the legal merits of individual complaints or whether collective proceedings can be brought.

If your Claude account was suspended and you were unable to retrieve your conversations, projects, files, or other materials, we invite you to share your experience.

Submit your case here:

https://aimperia.ai/anthropic-form

Learn more about the initiative:

https://onecoderegister.io/anthropic.html

We are particularly interested in understanding whether users received their complete archives, whether exported files preserved project structures, and whether they encountered obstacles when attempting to download their data.

Digital ownership should not become meaningless when access to a service ends.