AI × Copyright × Ideology: The Post‑Civilization Era Set in Motion by SEEDANCE 2.0

Regarding the recent backlash against SEEDANCE 2.0 from NAFCA, the MPA, SAG-AFTRA, the DGA, and other organizations, here are my thoughts.

Let me start with the essentials:

1. You can never make someone who fundamentally rejects the concept of copyright understand what copyright is, or why it exists.

2. The worship of power—military, political, financial—makes people ignore every rule, because if you win, you get to rewrite history.

3. AI × humans × mass‑production tools = an explosion of output

I won’t write too much. I just want to expand on these points.

In certain power structures, creative work is treated as low‑tier labor—something that can be summoned, replaced, or replicated at will.

Because it is “cheap,” it is not respected.

In Japan, creators are “irreplaceable artisans.”

In the West, creators are “core assets of the entertainment industry.”

But in some places, creators are treated like obedient dogs.

No—perhaps even less than that.

Once you understand this, the AI industry’s erosion and crushing of copyright becomes much easier to grasp.

I once said that “AI learning from humanity’s knowledge base is no different from a human student studying,” and I still believe that—though many court rulings clearly do not.

The difference is this: a human, even with a PhD, has a lifetime limit on output (I once used Osamu Tezuka as an example).

But AI is an amplifier. It allows anyone to reach—or surpass—a PhD’s lifetime output in a very short time.

In other words:

AI × humans × mass‑production tools = an explosion of output

Throughout this process, most traditional industries implicitly assumed that “AI training data is free to obtain.”

That was the nature—and the original ideal—of the internet.

The problem is that SEEDANCE 2.0 converts its “learned results” into a system where anyone can freely use any creator’s copyrighted work.

Of course that triggered outrage.

Yet under a completely different ideological framework, certain high‑powered propaganda machines reframed this outrage as “oppression,” claiming that creators defending their own rights are “afraid” or “jealous of our success.”

Such rhetoric only fuels more anger.

Now, a few small predictions.

Driven by creators and their lobbying efforts, any country capable of enforcing copyright will begin passing laws to restrict and regulate the free acquisition of training data.

Some may even require AI companies to disclose their most fundamental, original datasets.

At the same time, AI output will be tightly controlled—through a combination of internal moderation by AI companies and reporting systems for users and creators.

Companies found to be infringing will face heavy penalties.

AI companies, meanwhile, have already begun training “style‑fusion” and “style‑obfuscation” models in an attempt to produce outputs with genuinely original characteristics.

If—under certain political conditions—the world shifts further to the right, national AI policies will tilt toward “security first” and “industrial dominance first.”

In such an environment, AI will no longer be just a technological competition between companies or nations; it will become a geopolitical strategic asset.

As the owner of SEEDANCE 2.0, ByteDance may eventually be forced to restrict user output under mounting pressure.

Even so, there are few entities on Earth capable of competing with a conglomerate of this scale.

Humanity’s last hope may be xAI.

Perhaps. Only perhaps.

This article was published on February 15, 2026.

By VON(壹叔瘋神)