I'd only want to have another story written by the same author. If they wrote something epic, they are sure to do it again. If you have random people writing sequels, chances are they won't be as good, and with the kind of society we live in now whenever anything becomes popular everyone wants to have there hands on it. It would also ruin the integrity of the original authors plot structure.
I'm not sure how people's inability to wholesale copy another's work somehow slows down creativity. Star Wars as told by anyone doesn't seem like creativity, it seems like a lazy tie in hack job. I'll bite and say that creating a work from somebody else's work, then using that copywrite to block copying both, the way that Disney did, is pretty sleazy. But that's because, to me, it's the instance of a thief stealing something then saying that when they did it, it was fine, but not anymore.
I'll also bite and say that a company taking copywrite away from an author and hoard it away from the author themselves is sleazy, but that's bad even if the copywrite is 1 day long, and it's own entirely different problem. J. K. Rowling can keep her copywrite to Harry Potter. Remaking Harry Potter but this by Disney this time rather than Warner isn't creative or fresh, either.
I wouldn't be able to enjoy the new Star Wars films made by dozens of fans, in your scenario. There wouldn't be a canon to follow. With no canon, there's no point.
I didn't feel like going through your 1500+ comments. Someone might have said this already. What about the "fair use" part of copyright that america has? I kind of feel like you could have said something about it. Since it lets people use copyrighted material as long as they are adding something more to it? (a guess, but I'm fairly sure that thats the way it is)
Here is my take on the original trilogy. I watched the phantom menace when I was 7 and AotC when I was 10. My father took me to those movies as he was a great fan. I remember being utterly fascinated and amazed by the rich world of Star Wars. People your age will disagree with me (rightly, so) but I don't think they're terrible. I remember being amused by Jar Jar.
I also like to reference Laurence Lessig's book 'Free Culture' which has a reference to cases where old film needs to be restored before it degrades beyond use. (which is sometimes hard to get perm...
Um, not to nitpick, but they can still tell the stories. Just not officially and they can't make money from it. Like you said, whether you'll turn a profit or not is immaterial if you've got a story to tell, and fan communities let you tell it. And then have it ripped apart by someone with only the very vaguest notions of spelling and grammar because you put a gay couple in it or got an intensely obscure canon detail wrong. Rough with the smooth, I suppose...
At the last second there is an annotation asking "did you find him?" I am now going to go crazy trying to figure out what more hidden links that cheeky son of a gun put in his video.
I think the 70 years after death rule is not for companies, but more for the family the copyright holder leaves behind. 70 years seems a bit too long though. And btw, we CAN make new Harry Potter stories or Star Wars Stories, we just can´t make money of it.
Furthermore, I think all IP (copyright and patents) should be amalgamated into a unified system that gives you 20 years + the ability to renew for 10 if you can show that you are still actively using it. Ok, maybe not those exact terms of years, but the fundamental idea is the same.
@IIAOPSW Patents are very different from copyrights which are very different from trademarks. They shouldn't all have the exact same rules and term limits.
@CGPGrey trademarks I would agree with. that, like your name, should be yours/your companies until you die/go out of business. But why not combine patents and copyright. Both are a state granted monopoly over an idea for a limited time. The only major difference that comes to mind is that you can't really have a derivative work/fair use of a patent. I can't think of a good reason one should last longer than the other.
@IIAOPSW You've got Copyright, Trademark, and Patent.
Trademark never expires, but it's just branding/image.
Copyright (IMO) should last for lifetime plus a bit (NOT plus 90). 14 years + renual in 18th century was most of your remaining life.
Patents last (normally) 20 years, and apply to pretty much all non-art stuff. But technology offers bigger improvements to society than art, so I guess that's why that's short. It does mean all new things (esp. drugs) are very expensive for profit.
"Copyright (IMO) should last for lifetime plus a bit " why the plus a bit? What could you possibly do with a copyright once you are dead? Even lasting the whole lifetime seems unreasonable IMO.
"technology offers bigger improvements to society than art, so I guess that's why that's short."
Why is that a justification for shorter terms? In theory the longer terms would encourage people to make more art things, but by your own admission technology is better for society.
@IIAOPSW Having longer technology patents would mean people needing to pay more for longer, since it would take longer for technology to be "public domain". I find that bad. Having art copyright at life+3 years, say, means all the extra sales just after you die will still make it to your family/whoever-is-in-you-will. Having it life +90 is too damn long.
This is excellent! Finally someone who states my exact opinions on copyright law without sounding like a "IP is bad, free stuff for all" hippie!
I should point out the statute of Queen Anne only provided 14 years+ a chance to renew once. Also other forms of IP don't have terms nearly as long (patents) thus establishing a built in societal incentive to make art over inventing useful things. (I'm not saying art is bad, I'm saying no such incentive should be artificially made).
You can't even do that. It's become almost entirely up the discretion of the copyright holder whether you're allowed to do anything with their "toys". Won't even go into how that will become a nightmare once SOPA/PIPA/ACTA are finally bought through their respective congresses.
Regardless of how true this comment is, if there's no money in it, why on earth would anyone waste their time with it? Furthermore, there would be no way anyone could really turn it into a proper published work, since that takes oodles of money whether it's print, film, or tv. Why would you pour money into something that has no chance of earning you a dime?
@izzed3500 To answer you, I suppose people would be motivated to write or film or act out their vision in the first place because they enjoy it, that's more what I meant in my previous comment. We shouldn't limit ourselves and our creativity because we are centred around profit (even if that's what the rest of the world is centred around).
I would press "like" for this video, but then I would feel as if I agree with the laws you tell us about. Thanks for the info anyways, you just gained a subscriber.
@charliesbass i was entertained by the eye candy yes. but i hated the plot of the first film. i did have fun with ep 2, but i loved ep 3 which is the only good prequel.
One critical thing I noticed that wasn't brought up here:the canoncity of sequels after their OC's r dead.I'd love it if they show how copyrights work in Japan.How Ooishi Naho got the approval 2 add on Bardock with a manga story & adaptation with noticably less complaining then usual anti-GT rants while Tori is alive is beyond me.When Toriyama dies will Dragon ball b up 4 grabs ladies & gentlemen?.O nelly...only imagine the ensuing race & battle btw companies 4 a legit continuation series :)
HEY! While I agree the prequel Star Wars films weren't so good, Episode 3 was not a total disaster. Hayden can't act and Lucas can't direct, but i did enjoy episode 3 and critics gave it positive reviews.
@CGPGrey he is a comedian, not a professional reviewer. i follow Rotten Tomatoes and others. Redletter makes valid points and makes me ROFL, but he also says a few things incorrectly. such as saying Qui-Gon had no character, when i actually did see it. He is a rebel to the jedi order, doin things his own way. Ep 3 had shitty actors, but i did enjoy it and so did many pro film critics. He did well on eps 2 and 3 but i smiled when i saw ep 3. it is the best of the prequels
@BlueRoyalProductions according to ur poorly educated mind, yes, but according to professional critics, no. Also the lines were memorable . "If you're not with me, then you're my enemy." That's a good line. Hayden did try, i acknowledge those who try, but he clearly fucked up. I'm on the professional reviewers' side
@croc560 Not saying there weren't memorable lines, what I'm saying is the majority of the dialogue felt forced, like no person would ever say most of the stuff said. Your so-called "professional" view is flawed and twisted by Lucas and his shit prequel trilogy. The movie was boring in that every dialogue scene was the same. 2-3 people walking somewhere, then stopping and sitting down or continuing to walk. Sometimes they were already sitting down. Then it's shot reverse shot. BAD MOVIES
@BlueRoyalProductions and arent you following the opinions of others? and who said i am only liking the 3rd film cuz of what RT said. I said i am on their side. I am on their side because our opinions are the same. ep 3 was and is the only good prequel. I presume you are just following what redlettermedia has said.
@croc560 Wait, who's Redlettermedia? I follow my own opinions. You stated that you were siding with the critics, and besides, I bet a large number of critics were paid off to say it was good.
I follow my own as well. but if you wanna bet that, you go ahead and make the stupid bet. I presume the Razzie awards were paid to make Hayden get the Worst actor award?
@BlueRoyalProductions and i know that they get paid by the critic team they are working for. the critics of RT, the critics of Metacritic, etc. they work for those critic companies. and if they can be "easily" paid off, then explain why Bay hasnt paid them to give good reviews about Pearl Harbor or Transformers. Do you think Lucas has the time to search for all these critics and pay them? Did he pay the Razzie awards to give him all those "worst" this and that awards?
@croc560 No amount of money could make someone say Bay movies were good. And he didn't have to pay them all off, just the right ones and the rest would follow suit in order to avoid being the odd man out, and you know for a fact when I say paid off what I meant. Those critics get money under the table all the time.
@BlueRoyalProductions and u have evidence? you do know that critics can be fired for taking bribes. explain why The Last airbender director didnt pay some people. explain why MANY other directors havent paid them off. and you refuse to answer this: did Lucas pay for his films to get those Razzie awards?
@croc560 Yea, no shit they can get fired for taking bribes. Anyone can get fired for taking bribes, it's all about not getting caught. Perhaps TLA and a lot of others didn't pay them because they chose not to. Lucas probably didn't pay for the Razzie awards because he didn't have to, the lines were so shitty that no known man or woman in history could have done the roles well.
@BlueRoyalProductions well those lines got good reviews, save for the romance shit. Also u hve no evidence of them being paid. also Michael Bay has made three boxoffice successful films, so he could easily pay all of them. You dont know anything about how the world of professional reviewing works and the more you mention bribes the more you sound like an idiot. Lucas didnt pay anyone, this is obvious. the reviews of Ep 1 are going on again now tht its in 3D and it went DOWN
@croc560 You can't find evidence for bribing because usually they don't want you to find any. Michael Bay's movies may have been blockbusters but they SUCKED, anyone with a brain can see that. The prequel, especially episode 3, SUCKED. The more you talk about how much you think episode III was good the stupider you sound. I know how reviewing works, trust me. You seem to not know what makes a good movie.
@BlueRoyalProductions episode 3 is considered the best of the prequels by both critics and fans. Episode 1 was the worst. I know what makes a good movie, that is why i like ep 3
@BlueRoyalProductions so you're saying they are guilty of bribes until proven innocent? i guess they were bribed to say LOTR was a good movie, WHICH IT WAS. u know nothing
@croc560 Yea, no shit LOTR was a good movie. And no, you're missing the whole point of what I'm saying. I'm saying that when it's obvious they were paid of (cough vough Episode 3 cough) then I can call them out on it. I seem to know a lot more than you as your comments have taken a turn and you are now on the retreat.
@BlueRoyalProductions that or maybe ur just mad that ep 3 turned out to be good. you know absolutely nothing. you have no evidence to back up your claim. you're saying they are guilty until proven innocent which is just wrong. and lucas seems to not care about the opinions as he keeps adding more shit despite us begging him not to. your claim should be added to one of the top five ridiculous conspiracy theories.
Great video !! Most of the copyright laws are just ridiculous. + "Han shot first, you bastard". Haha!!! And the prequels are good movies...just saying.
Well, I feel nonexistent guilt for downloading old stuff to watch and read and this cements it.
I think the lifetime of the Author/creative genius is long enough, particularly in the case of Disney, unless in particular cases where the author died young or published at the end of their life. Then the profit can go towards their children/bereaved spouse, for a certain amount of time.
@NeilSonOfNorbert In a lot of cases you are correct, however in the cases where the author is likely to die within a short period of time it gives the author problems with getting his book published. Let's say that I've got cancer, I write a book about my experience,the book is great, it's both inspireing & educational.Because of my cancer, I'm likely to die within the next7 months because of my cancer.Publishers wont publish my book because they'll loose the rights in 7 months
It isn't copyright to be inspired (i.e. who's to say that strange novel stemmed form the idea of Star Wars is *really* Star Wars? Things would never be new and shiny if people only re-worked things form the current generation. Where would the evolution and mutation be in creativity?), it's copyright to take something, paint it another shade of red, then claim it as your own and get a profit from it . . . but it wasn't yours. Without copyright, people wouldn't have to think as hard, which is bad.
@BottlecapsForCatz If "things" weren't allowed to build off past stories like LOTR building off Anglo-Saxon mythology or every poet from Emerson to Pope borrowing from Shakespeare then humanity wouldn't get anywhere. As an English major who hopes to one day be an author, I can sincerely say that if I ever actually write books, I only hope they will be good enough for later generations to borrow from and improve.
@BottlecapsForCatz evolution and mutation is when an already existing life form changes. IE it is building off of something that already exists. So A) your analogy's suck, and B) I do agree that people shouldn't just rip off others peoples hard work, but copy rights extended after death do not achieve this. Someone once said "the best ideas aren't borrowed, they're stolen."
I personally disagree with the concept of giving up copyright after 28 years. That means that I could live to see my work re-made in a way I find detestable, but would not be able to do anything about. Let's say I make a story with a theme of "dictatorships are bad," and 28 years later, someone can re-release my story, but change it so the theme is "dictatorships are great." Since I no longer own the rights to that work, I can't do anything about it, even if I find it to be an insulting remake.
@Paool3107 Freedom of speech, much? Just because you find it insulting, doesn't mean you should have the right to suppress it. If we lived in a world where you could decide who made what, when, where, and how, then your "dictatorships are bad" viewpoint would, rather hypocritically be the opposite of your actions.
"I find it to be insulting" is not a reason for someone to shut up. If they want to be nice to you they can feel obliged to, but they should still have the freedom to choose.
Why did you use George Lucas as an example? He's probably made more money than any director EVER. It's like saying "Oh, you make some money from your paper run," by comparing it to how much money the Editor-in-Chief of the newspaper makes. Except it's not even like that because most stuff that requires copyright isn't stable income.
I kind of disagree with the message of this video, with the guy complaining copyright not lasting 28 years. I kind of agree with copyright not to be owned by companies, but copyright should last AT LEAST during the author's life-time. You don't want to put all your effort in creating something and then a douche-bag to come along and make money with it while you are still alive
@PsychoholicSlag83 30 years is plenty of time to a) profit off of a successful product and/or b) take time to make something new with which to prolong those sought after riches. Extending copyright that long does nothing to promote new, innovative creations, and gives people like Lucas an excuse to merely re-release their products again and again, with the knowledge that it is unique enough to still make a profit and enough cushion to stop making things altogether.
I'd only want to have another story written by the same author. If they wrote something epic, they are sure to do it again. If you have random people writing sequels, chances are they won't be as good, and with the kind of society we live in now whenever anything becomes popular everyone wants to have there hands on it. It would also ruin the integrity of the original authors plot structure.
Ringei144 8 hours ago
I'm not sure how people's inability to wholesale copy another's work somehow slows down creativity. Star Wars as told by anyone doesn't seem like creativity, it seems like a lazy tie in hack job. I'll bite and say that creating a work from somebody else's work, then using that copywrite to block copying both, the way that Disney did, is pretty sleazy. But that's because, to me, it's the instance of a thief stealing something then saying that when they did it, it was fine, but not anymore.
DamienGranz 8 hours ago
I'll also bite and say that a company taking copywrite away from an author and hoard it away from the author themselves is sleazy, but that's bad even if the copywrite is 1 day long, and it's own entirely different problem. J. K. Rowling can keep her copywrite to Harry Potter. Remaking Harry Potter but this by Disney this time rather than Warner isn't creative or fresh, either.
DamienGranz 8 hours ago
Wait so the American copyright law is copyrighted?
bakalakpal 20 hours ago
And now we have SOPA.
CommanderOrion732 21 hours ago
@CommanderOrion732 ACTA*
DaComputaMasta 21 hours ago
Comment removed
CommanderOrion732 21 hours ago
I am a stalker.
Repu62ic 22 hours ago
i just noticed the creeper in the window *facepalm
racheatclank1230 1 day ago in playlist Grey Explains (chronological order)
I wouldn't be able to enjoy the new Star Wars films made by dozens of fans, in your scenario. There wouldn't be a canon to follow. With no canon, there's no point.
Beandude202 1 day ago
If copyright is only as long as the author's life, doesn't that create an incentive to kill that author?
GretnaBlast 1 day ago in playlist Grey Explains 41
This was the best argument I heard against copyright!! Kudos!!!!
HYurani 1 day ago
2:00 You forgot the new Blu-Ray release!
svk1324 1 day ago 5
@svk1324 this was made before it came out
acecase25 1 day ago in playlist Grey Explains
@acecase25 But if he researched correctly he would know that it come out 1 month later.
svk1324 1 day ago
@svk1324 and star wars trilogy 3d rerelease at cinema
lanchedgehog 1 day ago
"Did you find him?"
WHO!?
Malanaks 1 day ago
They are not works of art, they are "Revenue" :P
kakureru 1 day ago
Copyrights should only last one life time. (100 years) Then its time to give it up you greedy son of bitches.
GoldingPurple 1 day ago
what about spoofs?
yennmanson 1 day ago
@yennmanson Look up "fair use" on wikipedia.
NOVAtheRetard 1 day ago
Thumbs up if you stayed till the very end of the video.
NanoKiwiKid 1 day ago
star wars song scared the shit outta me!
9797Green 1 day ago
I thought it was the author's life +70 years?
gregslife7 2 days ago
Cant forget the blu-ray remastering and the theater re-release of episode 1 now in 3d. And he T.V. shows... and the animated movies...
Let it die George.
.
.
O and the who know how many video games including the brand new MMORPG "Star Wars of the Old Republic"
dogbots159 2 days ago 2
"Han shot first, you bastard." hahahaha
swordshock1 2 days ago
0:20 creeper :D
alexchris32 2 days ago
Dam it, now I can't remake the Prince of Persia movie in my lifetime =(
lngun4311 2 days ago
0:19 Do you see a creeper in the window?
Jatkangwan 2 days ago
@Jatkangwan OMG how did you see that? That is AWESOME!!
wolfintheclouds 2 days ago
Aaaand the 2012 blueray release
BiGdaddyM100 2 days ago
and now blu ray
ZappyRadio 3 days ago
I didn't feel like going through your 1500+ comments. Someone might have said this already. What about the "fair use" part of copyright that america has? I kind of feel like you could have said something about it. Since it lets people use copyrighted material as long as they are adding something more to it? (a guess, but I'm fairly sure that thats the way it is)
TheNotEverything 3 days ago
People can just as long they are consider parody and tributes and not for profit. Explains all fan art fictional stories and movies.
J5MARLON 3 days ago
stalker cat and nyan cat. <3 you would make the coolest teacher ever.
foreverdreamie 3 days ago
I'm pretty sure you insulted George Lucas and his writing + directing genius....how dare you
ThatOtherComedyShow 4 days ago
1:58 dont forget the 2012 3D release!
JMcMashUp 4 days ago
It will take forever for Walt Disney to lift the copyrights and patents on their work.
OfficialJerla 4 days ago
YAY! a youtube famous mac user!
coldblade2000 4 days ago
what
panman1021 4 days ago
@CGPGrey at 6:28 ... find who ... the nyan cat?
TheRoyalGanj 4 days ago
Good
fireskul98 5 days ago
Here is my take on the original trilogy. I watched the phantom menace when I was 7 and AotC when I was 10. My father took me to those movies as he was a great fan. I remember being utterly fascinated and amazed by the rich world of Star Wars. People your age will disagree with me (rightly, so) but I don't think they're terrible. I remember being amused by Jar Jar.
johnniewalker2222 5 days ago
...permission for, if not impossible)
HornetBlack 5 days ago
I also like to reference Laurence Lessig's book 'Free Culture' which has a reference to cases where old film needs to be restored before it degrades beyond use. (which is sometimes hard to get perm...
HornetBlack 5 days ago
Um, not to nitpick, but they can still tell the stories. Just not officially and they can't make money from it. Like you said, whether you'll turn a profit or not is immaterial if you've got a story to tell, and fan communities let you tell it. And then have it ripped apart by someone with only the very vaguest notions of spelling and grammar because you put a gay couple in it or got an intensely obscure canon detail wrong. Rough with the smooth, I suppose...
leaguesmanoframsgate 5 days ago
At the last second there is an annotation asking "did you find him?" I am now going to go crazy trying to figure out what more hidden links that cheeky son of a gun put in his video.
JonnyTHM429 5 days ago
wow when the star wars song came on it scared the shit out of me!
twoohhunoh 5 days ago
10000% more tentacles ( 2:03 )
MrSpaceman8774 5 days ago in playlist Grey Explains
"Sorcerers stone"...? Huh?
Samuelwhatshisface 6 days ago
I think the 70 years after death rule is not for companies, but more for the family the copyright holder leaves behind. 70 years seems a bit too long though. And btw, we CAN make new Harry Potter stories or Star Wars Stories, we just can´t make money of it.
Nightyyou 6 days ago
@neilsonofnorbert couldn't that lead to assassination attempts? Money is Money.
Clawz0987 6 days ago in playlist Grey Explains (All)
Anyone else see the creeper at 00:19?
artguy96 6 days ago
When copyright came to food and medicine... the shit hitted the fan.
HitmarkJ 6 days ago
for your children you twit
Pvic 6 days ago
Ha, I just noticed the creeper at :19
cjdog89 6 days ago
could I embed this in a website for fourth graders?
DanainMO 6 days ago
@DanainMO ..oops! Bastard will not be acceptable, lol!
DanainMO 6 days ago
A copyright should be forever. Star Wars is Lucas's life work and he should have complete control over it.
jerrysoldier 1 week ago
@jerrysoldier Forever is too long. Until the author's death should be more than enough.
dragatus 1 day ago 16
DEAD DEAD DEAD DEAD DEAD
SaraSoulSister 1 week ago
Furthermore, I think all IP (copyright and patents) should be amalgamated into a unified system that gives you 20 years + the ability to renew for 10 if you can show that you are still actively using it. Ok, maybe not those exact terms of years, but the fundamental idea is the same.
IIAOPSW 1 week ago 3
@IIAOPSW Patents are very different from copyrights which are very different from trademarks. They shouldn't all have the exact same rules and term limits.
CGPGrey 1 week ago 10
@CGPGrey trademarks I would agree with. that, like your name, should be yours/your companies until you die/go out of business. But why not combine patents and copyright. Both are a state granted monopoly over an idea for a limited time. The only major difference that comes to mind is that you can't really have a derivative work/fair use of a patent. I can't think of a good reason one should last longer than the other.
IIAOPSW 1 week ago
@IIAOPSW You've got Copyright, Trademark, and Patent.
Trademark never expires, but it's just branding/image.
Copyright (IMO) should last for lifetime plus a bit (NOT plus 90). 14 years + renual in 18th century was most of your remaining life.
Patents last (normally) 20 years, and apply to pretty much all non-art stuff. But technology offers bigger improvements to society than art, so I guess that's why that's short. It does mean all new things (esp. drugs) are very expensive for profit.
AdderSIG 2 days ago
@AdderSIG
"Copyright (IMO) should last for lifetime plus a bit " why the plus a bit? What could you possibly do with a copyright once you are dead? Even lasting the whole lifetime seems unreasonable IMO.
"technology offers bigger improvements to society than art, so I guess that's why that's short."
Why is that a justification for shorter terms? In theory the longer terms would encourage people to make more art things, but by your own admission technology is better for society.
IIAOPSW 2 days ago
@IIAOPSW Having longer technology patents would mean people needing to pay more for longer, since it would take longer for technology to be "public domain". I find that bad. Having art copyright at life+3 years, say, means all the extra sales just after you die will still make it to your family/whoever-is-in-you-will. Having it life +90 is too damn long.
AdderSIG 2 days ago
This is excellent! Finally someone who states my exact opinions on copyright law without sounding like a "IP is bad, free stuff for all" hippie!
I should point out the statute of Queen Anne only provided 14 years+ a chance to renew once. Also other forms of IP don't have terms nearly as long (patents) thus establishing a built in societal incentive to make art over inventing useful things. (I'm not saying art is bad, I'm saying no such incentive should be artificially made).
IIAOPSW 1 week ago 4
@IIAOPSW Yes, I'm not in the information-wants-to-be-free camp. I'm *for* copyright, just not *unlimited* copyright.
CGPGrey 1 week ago 7
I CAME HERE TO WITNESS THE EXISTENCE OF A FLYING SPAGHETTI MONSTER
CHOCOLATIONZ 1 week ago
You can still tell the other stories so long as you don't distribute them for profit.
queendaisytimpani 1 week ago
@queendaisytimpani
You can't even do that. It's become almost entirely up the discretion of the copyright holder whether you're allowed to do anything with their "toys". Won't even go into how that will become a nightmare once SOPA/PIPA/ACTA are finally bought through their respective congresses.
skyesfury 1 week ago in playlist Grey Explains (All)
@skyesfury If it's up to the copyright holder, there's still a chance you could use their material. But I get what you're saying.
queendaisytimpani 6 days ago
@queendaisytimpani
Regardless of how true this comment is, if there's no money in it, why on earth would anyone waste their time with it? Furthermore, there would be no way anyone could really turn it into a proper published work, since that takes oodles of money whether it's print, film, or tv. Why would you pour money into something that has no chance of earning you a dime?
izzed3500 1 week ago
@izzed3500 To answer you, I suppose people would be motivated to write or film or act out their vision in the first place because they enjoy it, that's more what I meant in my previous comment. We shouldn't limit ourselves and our creativity because we are centred around profit (even if that's what the rest of the world is centred around).
queendaisytimpani 6 days ago
These videos make me love learning.
kelsieeL187 1 week ago 34
Do copyright laws extend to fanfiction?
Pixiestix123321 1 week ago
Han shot first, you bastard!
4Maddee4 1 week ago in playlist Grey Explains (chronological order)
I would press "like" for this video, but then I would feel as if I agree with the laws you tell us about. Thanks for the info anyways, you just gained a subscriber.
TheOtherRetard 1 week ago in playlist Grey Explains (All)
Was I the only one who enjoyed the Star Wars prequels?
charliesbass 1 week ago
@charliesbass i was entertained by the eye candy yes. but i hated the plot of the first film. i did have fun with ep 2, but i loved ep 3 which is the only good prequel.
croc560 5 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
bet i maı̸̸̸̸̸̸̸̸̸̸̸̸̸̸̸̸̸̸̨̨̨̨̨̨de you wipe your screen
nawras223 1 week ago
Did I find who?
vexter2009 1 week ago in playlist Grey Explains
Well, if copyrights end at the author's death, wouldn't it incite people to murder successful authors to be able to use their material more quickly?
Kebabsoup 1 week ago
What happens when something is created as work for hire for a company or created with a partner?
bobscomic1 1 week ago
What about the bluray release?? you missed that!! :)
shashanksaxena92 1 week ago in playlist Grey Explains
@shashanksaxena92 That wasn't before 2005, when the copyright would have ended originally.
Killzre 1 week ago
YES, yes IM !
kinexia 1 week ago in playlist Grey Explains
1:58
My god... Lucas, you are a whore.
GammaFoxTBG 1 week ago
One critical thing I noticed that wasn't brought up here:the canoncity of sequels after their OC's r dead.I'd love it if they show how copyrights work in Japan.How Ooishi Naho got the approval 2 add on Bardock with a manga story & adaptation with noticably less complaining then usual anti-GT rants while Tori is alive is beyond me.When Toriyama dies will Dragon ball b up 4 grabs ladies & gentlemen?.O nelly...only imagine the ensuing race & battle btw companies 4 a legit continuation series :)
yoyoyoy500 1 week ago
Fuck Copyright.
xXRandallxRemorseXx 1 week ago 2
huahauhauahuaha! Star Wars anime ver.
MOAR TENTACLES! xD
hellpander1 1 week ago
IMHO SW Episode V is the best one. Ironically it's the only one Lucas didn't direct...
RectumPilum 1 week ago
Don't forget the 2012 3D re-release!
zippyman28 1 week ago
0:20
Think they have more issues than copyright outside their window..
ryman753 1 week ago
do youtube parodies count?
eManifons 1 week ago
Poor poor Lucas :/
jensah84 1 week ago
Every generation needs its own epic movies! Copyright laws should only last 30 years.
Sojoez 1 week ago
HEY! While I agree the prequel Star Wars films weren't so good, Episode 3 was not a total disaster. Hayden can't act and Lucas can't direct, but i did enjoy episode 3 and critics gave it positive reviews.
croc560 1 week ago in playlist Grey Explains 5
@croc560 I direct you to the Red Letter Media review of Ep 3.
CGPGrey 1 week ago 17
@CGPGrey he is a comedian, not a professional reviewer. i follow Rotten Tomatoes and others. Redletter makes valid points and makes me ROFL, but he also says a few things incorrectly. such as saying Qui-Gon had no character, when i actually did see it. He is a rebel to the jedi order, doin things his own way. Ep 3 had shitty actors, but i did enjoy it and so did many pro film critics. He did well on eps 2 and 3 but i smiled when i saw ep 3. it is the best of the prequels
croc560 1 week ago
@CGPGrey I wish I could Thumbs Up this response a trillion times.
smartmarke 1 week ago
@CGPGrey i direct you to the Rotten Tomatoes website
croc560 5 days ago
@croc560 Hayden's not a bad actor, not even Sir Alec Guinness could have worked with those shitty lines.
BlueRoyalProductions 6 days ago
@BlueRoyalProductions the lines were not shitty, as they had memorable quotes. Hayden won the Razzie award for Worst Actor TWICE for a reason.
croc560 6 days ago
@croc560 No, they were shitty. The entire movie was boring. Lucas can't write dialog worth a shit. No one could have done well in those roles.
BlueRoyalProductions 6 days ago
@BlueRoyalProductions according to ur poorly educated mind, yes, but according to professional critics, no. Also the lines were memorable . "If you're not with me, then you're my enemy." That's a good line. Hayden did try, i acknowledge those who try, but he clearly fucked up. I'm on the professional reviewers' side
croc560 6 days ago
@croc560 Not saying there weren't memorable lines, what I'm saying is the majority of the dialogue felt forced, like no person would ever say most of the stuff said. Your so-called "professional" view is flawed and twisted by Lucas and his shit prequel trilogy. The movie was boring in that every dialogue scene was the same. 2-3 people walking somewhere, then stopping and sitting down or continuing to walk. Sometimes they were already sitting down. Then it's shot reverse shot. BAD MOVIES
BlueRoyalProductions 5 days ago
@BlueRoyalProductions Lucas is not part of the Rotten Tomatoes team! So how is my professional review twisted?
croc560 5 days ago
I am 100% siding with the professional film reviewers for the prequels.
croc560 5 days ago
@croc560 You should develop your own opinions rather than have someone else pick them for you, it isn't natural to be misled like that.
BlueRoyalProductions 5 days ago
@BlueRoyalProductions and arent you following the opinions of others? and who said i am only liking the 3rd film cuz of what RT said. I said i am on their side. I am on their side because our opinions are the same. ep 3 was and is the only good prequel. I presume you are just following what redlettermedia has said.
croc560 5 days ago
@croc560 Wait, who's Redlettermedia? I follow my own opinions. You stated that you were siding with the critics, and besides, I bet a large number of critics were paid off to say it was good.
BlueRoyalProductions 5 days ago
I follow my own as well. but if you wanna bet that, you go ahead and make the stupid bet. I presume the Razzie awards were paid to make Hayden get the Worst actor award?
croc560 5 days ago
@BlueRoyalProductions I assume lucas paid the Razzie awards (Who follow critics) to give Lucas the Worst Director award?
croc560 5 days ago
@BlueRoyalProductions be4 you judge critics, do some research on how the critics work.
croc560 5 days ago
@croc560 I know how critics work, and I know that critics, and people in general, like getting their pockets lined. Put 2 and 2 together.
BlueRoyalProductions 5 days ago
@BlueRoyalProductions and i know that they get paid by the critic team they are working for. the critics of RT, the critics of Metacritic, etc. they work for those critic companies. and if they can be "easily" paid off, then explain why Bay hasnt paid them to give good reviews about Pearl Harbor or Transformers. Do you think Lucas has the time to search for all these critics and pay them? Did he pay the Razzie awards to give him all those "worst" this and that awards?
croc560 5 days ago
@croc560 No amount of money could make someone say Bay movies were good. And he didn't have to pay them all off, just the right ones and the rest would follow suit in order to avoid being the odd man out, and you know for a fact when I say paid off what I meant. Those critics get money under the table all the time.
BlueRoyalProductions 5 days ago
@BlueRoyalProductions and u have evidence? you do know that critics can be fired for taking bribes. explain why The Last airbender director didnt pay some people. explain why MANY other directors havent paid them off. and you refuse to answer this: did Lucas pay for his films to get those Razzie awards?
croc560 5 days ago
@croc560 Yea, no shit they can get fired for taking bribes. Anyone can get fired for taking bribes, it's all about not getting caught. Perhaps TLA and a lot of others didn't pay them because they chose not to. Lucas probably didn't pay for the Razzie awards because he didn't have to, the lines were so shitty that no known man or woman in history could have done the roles well.
BlueRoyalProductions 4 days ago
@BlueRoyalProductions well those lines got good reviews, save for the romance shit. Also u hve no evidence of them being paid. also Michael Bay has made three boxoffice successful films, so he could easily pay all of them. You dont know anything about how the world of professional reviewing works and the more you mention bribes the more you sound like an idiot. Lucas didnt pay anyone, this is obvious. the reviews of Ep 1 are going on again now tht its in 3D and it went DOWN
croc560 4 days ago
@croc560 You can't find evidence for bribing because usually they don't want you to find any. Michael Bay's movies may have been blockbusters but they SUCKED, anyone with a brain can see that. The prequel, especially episode 3, SUCKED. The more you talk about how much you think episode III was good the stupider you sound. I know how reviewing works, trust me. You seem to not know what makes a good movie.
BlueRoyalProductions 4 days ago
@BlueRoyalProductions episode 3 is considered the best of the prequels by both critics and fans. Episode 1 was the worst. I know what makes a good movie, that is why i like ep 3
croc560 4 days ago
@BlueRoyalProductions so you're saying they are guilty of bribes until proven innocent? i guess they were bribed to say LOTR was a good movie, WHICH IT WAS. u know nothing
croc560 4 days ago
@croc560 Yea, no shit LOTR was a good movie. And no, you're missing the whole point of what I'm saying. I'm saying that when it's obvious they were paid of (cough vough Episode 3 cough) then I can call them out on it. I seem to know a lot more than you as your comments have taken a turn and you are now on the retreat.
BlueRoyalProductions 4 days ago
@BlueRoyalProductions that or maybe ur just mad that ep 3 turned out to be good. you know absolutely nothing. you have no evidence to back up your claim. you're saying they are guilty until proven innocent which is just wrong. and lucas seems to not care about the opinions as he keeps adding more shit despite us begging him not to. your claim should be added to one of the top five ridiculous conspiracy theories.
croc560 4 days ago
wow, didnt know little mermaid originated from another tale. and u forgot about Aladdin and Mulan.
croc560 1 week ago in playlist Grey Explains
Han shot first? What do you mean?
croc560 1 week ago in playlist Grey Explains
It's the PHILOSOPHER'S STONE! Screw what the US calls it!
croc560 1 week ago in playlist Grey Explains
0:19
c-c-creeper...
realevilcorgi 1 week ago 5
dude like no joke i dont get 99% of all my school shit, you should make more these i get thanks.
awsomness360 1 week ago
Great video !! Most of the copyright laws are just ridiculous. + "Han shot first, you bastard". Haha!!! And the prequels are good movies...just saying.
Cmcgold1221 1 week ago
well I guess there's still fanfiction... but then again ACTA is going to get rid of that soon, too.
lisilein2 1 week ago
in 1988? is that what I heard, lol
dereileak 1 week ago
nice music
iasonasa 1 week ago in playlist Grey Explains (All)
there needs to be something we can do about this. . .
WyattDeS 1 week ago
Beautifully explained, thanks very much!
Raconteur 1 week ago in playlist Grey Explains
2012 re-release too.
BirdieWearsGumboots 1 week ago
now with 10000 percent more tentacles... WAIT A MINUTE! THEY MADE THAT VERSION OF STARWARS! I SAW IT ON THE INTERNET!
BrutticusForce 1 week ago in playlist Grey Explains (All)
The same thing is happening with patents. They, too, should be abolished.
adubpakenham 1 week ago
You should make subs! :)
marioalejandrobn 1 week ago
Well, I feel nonexistent guilt for downloading old stuff to watch and read and this cements it.
I think the lifetime of the Author/creative genius is long enough, particularly in the case of Disney, unless in particular cases where the author died young or published at the end of their life. Then the profit can go towards their children/bereaved spouse, for a certain amount of time.
Carbonitedoubleohneg 1 week ago
That was eye opening
prankshopzify 1 week ago in playlist Grey Explains
Intradesting...
DeadSarow 1 week ago
I'm a stalker!
KatGurrrl6 1 week ago in playlist Grey Explains
very informative sir (applause)
johnson1095 1 week ago
contrast of fair use?
avikine 1 week ago in playlist Grey Explains
my personal opinion, lifetime of the athor then the copywrite is over.
NeilSonOfNorbert 1 week ago 56
@NeilSonOfNorbert In a lot of cases you are correct, however in the cases where the author is likely to die within a short period of time it gives the author problems with getting his book published. Let's say that I've got cancer, I write a book about my experience,the book is great, it's both inspireing & educational.Because of my cancer, I'm likely to die within the next7 months because of my cancer.Publishers wont publish my book because they'll loose the rights in 7 months
sindrehsoereide 6 days ago
'Han shot first, you bastard.' Perfect.
iamtheveggiemonster 1 week ago 2
Do a video on censoring of movies in the US plz?
vanmaren962 1 week ago in playlist Grey Explains
It isn't copyright to be inspired (i.e. who's to say that strange novel stemmed form the idea of Star Wars is *really* Star Wars? Things would never be new and shiny if people only re-worked things form the current generation. Where would the evolution and mutation be in creativity?), it's copyright to take something, paint it another shade of red, then claim it as your own and get a profit from it . . . but it wasn't yours. Without copyright, people wouldn't have to think as hard, which is bad.
BottlecapsForCatz 1 week ago in playlist Grey Explains
Comment removed
marshin75 1 week ago
Comment removed
marshin75 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@BottlecapsForCatz If "things" weren't allowed to build off past stories like LOTR building off Anglo-Saxon mythology or every poet from Emerson to Pope borrowing from Shakespeare then humanity wouldn't get anywhere. As an English major who hopes to one day be an author, I can sincerely say that if I ever actually write books, I only hope they will be good enough for later generations to borrow from and improve.
marshin75 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@BottlecapsForCatz evolution and mutation is when an already existing life form changes. IE it is building off of something that already exists. So A) your analogy's suck, and B) I do agree that people shouldn't just rip off others peoples hard work, but copy rights extended after death do not achieve this. Someone once said "the best ideas aren't borrowed, they're stolen."
marshin75 1 week ago
I personally disagree with the concept of giving up copyright after 28 years. That means that I could live to see my work re-made in a way I find detestable, but would not be able to do anything about. Let's say I make a story with a theme of "dictatorships are bad," and 28 years later, someone can re-release my story, but change it so the theme is "dictatorships are great." Since I no longer own the rights to that work, I can't do anything about it, even if I find it to be an insulting remake.
Paool3107 1 week ago
@Paool3107 Freedom of speech, much? Just because you find it insulting, doesn't mean you should have the right to suppress it. If we lived in a world where you could decide who made what, when, where, and how, then your "dictatorships are bad" viewpoint would, rather hypocritically be the opposite of your actions.
"I find it to be insulting" is not a reason for someone to shut up. If they want to be nice to you they can feel obliged to, but they should still have the freedom to choose.
wreynolds1995 1 week ago
ugh, the micky mouse laws are so dumb
fauxman 1 week ago
Dont forget the 2012 3d release
Flubberfish96 1 week ago in playlist Grey Explains (chronological order)
2:56 Decomposing dead
mrericsully 1 week ago
Why did you use George Lucas as an example? He's probably made more money than any director EVER. It's like saying "Oh, you make some money from your paper run," by comparing it to how much money the Editor-in-Chief of the newspaper makes. Except it's not even like that because most stuff that requires copyright isn't stable income.
kurtmcfried 1 week ago in playlist Grey Explains
creeper at window at 00:20 lol
FrizHedge 1 week ago
im ok with copyright lasting the creator's life time but fr 70 freakin years after they're dead thats ludicros!
benkenobired 1 week ago
I kind of disagree with the message of this video, with the guy complaining copyright not lasting 28 years. I kind of agree with copyright not to be owned by companies, but copyright should last AT LEAST during the author's life-time. You don't want to put all your effort in creating something and then a douche-bag to come along and make money with it while you are still alive
PsychoholicSlag83 1 week ago
@PsychoholicSlag83 30 years is plenty of time to a) profit off of a successful product and/or b) take time to make something new with which to prolong those sought after riches. Extending copyright that long does nothing to promote new, innovative creations, and gives people like Lucas an excuse to merely re-release their products again and again, with the knowledge that it is unique enough to still make a profit and enough cushion to stop making things altogether.
easilycrazyhat 1 week ago
Scumbag Disney ;D
ibidaxiuero 1 week ago
i fucking jumped at 0:54. thanks a lot
AmfyBIOS 1 week ago
1:25 - 2:00
And that's just the New Hope...
DrewXaviar 1 week ago