An attack against what? The sanctity of "their IP" that is itself the result of a massive copyright violation campaign?

It's merely a ToS violation.

That's violating TOS, spamming, possibly a DDOS, but the distillation in and of itself is not an attack it's just using the model.

Like the difference between scraping a site with one or two active connections vs thousands. It's not the scraping that is an attack, it is how they are going about it

Just sending a request to a service does not constitute an "attack". It seems that what Anthropic mean by "fraudulent account" is probably just one violating their terms of service - misuse of a subscription account, and/or the presumed nature of what the user was trying to do.

I guess Anthropoic would regard any developer using their subscription plan with OpenCode to be operating a "fraudulent account", maybe an "attacker" too. Now we know how they think of anyone using Claude to develop software competing with Anthropic. Only an "attacker" would want to vibe code their own harness, or god forbid want to learn how to build/train an LLM.

Of course Anthropic's wording is intended to be deliberately provocative, since they are trying to manipulate the US government into shutting down the Chinese competition.

Attack or customer

Is an attempt to copy all or parts of a model an attack, when models have very questionable copyright status? Maybe? I don't think most people have much sympathy here though.

Let’s not forget that by the same logic, Anthropic et al are “attacking” copyright holders all around the world by scraping their data unauthorized for training.

Pot calling kettle black.