Somewhere between the third espresso and the fifth AI demo of the morning, a video began circulating by Chinese AI vision model Seedance: Tom Cruise and Brad Pitt, or at least digital approximations of them, bantering and fighting away in a synthetic clip that was convincing enough to make you blink, squint, and check the caption twice.

It was, depending on your perspective, amusing, impressive, or faintly chilling. But what it really was, more than anything else, was instructive.

Because that video is not about two movie stars. It’s about the future of ownership itself.

We have wandered into a moment where the most powerful technology companies on earth are arguing, in court and in public, that they should be allowed to ingest the entire creative output of humanity – films, books, scripts, songs, designs, photographs without permission or payment, on the grounds that it is “fair use.”

Their argument, stripped of the glossy demo reels and optimistic keynote slides, is quite simple:

We shouldn’t have to pay creators or patent owners, because our technology is going to benefit society as a whole.

It is an argument that sounds oddly familiar.

Historically, one of the central claims of communist ideology was that private ownership, especially of the means of production should give way to collective benefit. Individual creators, inventors, or owners should not stand in the way of progress that serves everyone.

In other words:
The collective good outweighs individual property rights.

And here we are, in the heart of Silicon Valley, listening to some of the most aggressively capitalist companies in history make a strikingly similar case:
Don’t worry about the individual creator.
Don’t worry about the patent holder.
Don’t worry about the rights owner.
The technology will benefit everyone. Therefore, the property can be used.

It is a curious ideological pivot, rabid capitalists suddenly making arguments that sound suspiciously like collectivist theory provided, of course, that the collective benefit flows through their balance sheets.

One imagines a burglar politely explaining that he hasn’t stolen the silverware at all; he’s merely redistributed it for the good of the neighborhood.

And yet, this is precisely the case being made.

The Foundation Everyone Forgets

The Western economy, if one may still use that phrase without being accused of nostalgia rests on a deceptively simple idea: that intellectual property is real property.

Not metaphorically. Not symbolically. Legally.

If you write a book, you own it.
If you design a drug, you patent it.
If you create a character, you license it.
If you invent a device, you protect it.

This is not a footnote in the system. It is the system.

Entire industries exist because of it:

Take away the enforceability of intellectual property, and you don’t just disrupt Hollywood. You destabilize the very mechanism that makes innovation economically viable.

No patents, no incentive to invent.
No copyrights, no incentive to create.
No trademarks, no incentive to build brands.

There’s more at stake than just Hollywood.

It is the quiet engine beneath modern prosperity.

The AI Exception That Swallows the Rule

Now comes the AI industry, asking for a rather special exemption—and, one might note, a rather communist idea, if I may plant a thought that will pay off later.

Their position, broadly speaking, is this:

“We need all of your data, your scripts, your films, your art, your code, your photographs, your books, your voice, your face so that we can build the future. And we should not have to pay for it.”

It is, in effect, a request to suspend intellectual property law for the most valuable dataset ever assembled: human creativity itself.

If they win that argument, the precedent will not stop at Hollywood. It will not politely confine itself to actors’ likenesses or screenplays.

It will spread.
If it is acceptable to train on copyrighted films without permission, why not:

The logic is the same. The principle is identical.
And once that principle erodes, it erodes everywhere.

A Global Ideological Contest

There is another layer to this, one that rarely gets discussed in polite tech panels.

The modern system of intellectual property is not universal. It is ideological.

The United States, the United Kingdom, and most Western economies are built on the assumption that individuals and companies have enforceable ownership over their creations.

China, by contrast, is governed by a Communist Party whose ideological roots do not center private ownership in the same way. Historically, state or collective interests have taken precedence when they conflict with individual or corporate IP claims.

For decades, Western companies have complained about:

From a Western legal perspective, this is IP theft.
From a different ideological perspective, it is industrial policy.

So when global norms around intellectual property weaken—when the world begins to accept that creative work can be freely absorbed into machines without permission, it does not occur in a vacuum.

It shifts the balance of power.
If Hollywood’s rights are diluted, so are:

And suddenly, the ability to manufacture a character toy without paying Disney or to produce a patented device and sell it under a different name becomes easier to justify, both legally and politically.

This is more than a technology debate… It is a geopolitical one.

Strange Bedfellows: Silicon Valley and the State

Here is where the plot thickens, in the way all good geopolitical dramas do.

On paper, American tech companies and the Chinese state occupy opposite ends of the ideological spectrum.

In practice, on this one issue, their incentives align.
Both benefit from a world in which:

Because the less ownership exists, the more data can be consumed.

It is the rare moment in history where trillion-dollar corporations and state-directed industrial strategies are, if not allies, then at least rowing in the same direction.

And in the middle of this current sits the creative industries: film, television, advertising, publishing, music wondering whether the concept of ownership still applies to their work.

Hollywood Is Just the First Battlefield

The Tom Cruise and Brad Pitt deepfake is not the end of the story. It is the opening scene.

If two of the most recognizable faces on earth can be convincingly simulated without consent, what does that say about:

Or, for that matter:

Once the principle is broken, it is broken for everyone.

What You Can Actually Do

For too long, weve been treating this like a philosophical debate, but it needs to be a legislative one.

The future of intellectual property in the AI era will be shaped not just in courts, but in parliaments and congresses.

If you work in a creative, technological, or knowledge-based industry, you have a stake in this outcome.

And the simplest, most effective thing you can do is write to your elected representative and make one point clear:

Intellectual property protections must come first – before the interests of AI companies.

Find Your Representative

A Letter You Can Copy, Paste, and Send

Subject: Protect Intellectual Property in the Age of AI

Dear [Representative/MP Name],
I am writing as a constituent and as someone who works in a creative, technological, or knowledge-based field.
As artificial intelligence systems rapidly advance, many technology companies are arguing that they should be allowed to train their models on copyrighted and patented material without permission or compensation, under the theory of “fair use.”
This is not just a dispute between AI companies and the entertainment industry. It is a fundamental question about the future of intellectual property itself.
The modern economy depends on enforceable IP rights. These protections underpin:

• Film, television, and music
• Software and digital services
• Pharmaceuticals and medical research
• Consumer electronics and industrial design
• Publishing, advertising, and fashion

If AI companies are allowed to absorb copyrighted and patented works without permission, it will weaken the legal and economic foundations of all of these industries.
I urge you to support legislation and regulatory frameworks that:

1. Require AI companies to obtain permission before training on copyrighted or patented material.
2. Ensure that creators and rights holders are fairly compensated.
3. Preserve the principle that intellectual property is real, enforceable property.

Protecting IP is not about resisting technology. It is about ensuring that innovation and creativity remain economically viable in the AI era.
Thank you for your time and for your service.
Sincerely,
[Your Name]
[City/Zip Code]

The Tom Cruise Brad Pitt deepfake may be a curiosity today.

But the question it raises who owns any intellectual property  in the age of machines is one of the defining economic and cultural questions of our time.