How exactly would I become.....uhhhhhhh, whats the work, sponsored? I dont know, but when a company can avertize my music and get it out there for people to hear and stuff, I know they would get a percentage....but how exactly would that work? Is it just some phone calls to make? Help me out here. Any recommendations?

Actually, you get the percentage. They get the bulk. And it is extremely difficult to get representation in the classical world. It's the same process as getting "published", because in effect, that's what you're accomplishing. If you "know people", it could be as easy as a phone call. Otherwise, it's a long, tedious process of query-and-rejection.

Consider music libraries. They’re publishers too. If they like your music they may find placements on TV/film.

You have to have a quality finished product though. They won’t re-record anything.

If you get to the contract stage, ask for a non-exclusive contract. Some will go along with it some won't.

Good luck Monica. Watch out for the "sharks".

Best, John

I had someone from a music library ask me for some of my music. She said we'd have to sign forms through ASCAP and stuff. I am still keeping in touch with her, but I'm a little freaked out at the whole idea (right now). I mean, she said that I'd get money too, and that it would be open to tv/film, etc. but i dunno. It's a little scary. I'm not sure if I feel im old enough to turn over rights to my music yet! (or a good deal of them).

That's why I suggested a non-exclusive contract. You'll still be able to shop your tracks to other sources.

Don't be afraid of ASCAP, BMI, or SESAC - they're the source of your royalties.

John

I highly suggest one of two things to ANYONE dealing with contracts.

1. Go to a decent university. Enroll in a business law class that teaches contracts. (Usually it's a "101/102" thing...mine was "201/202".)

2. Figure out what books the professors use (go to the bookstore and ask) and read the books.

The more familiar you are with contract law, the less you have to have someone else explain it to you, and the less-likely you are to be cheated.

The same goes for copyright law. <---It's AMAZING the number of people who don't understand this law. Fortunately, I have the only textbook you need right here.

That's for the US. If you want International, it's a little trickier. At that point, you can probably trust an agency or contact your own (highly-paid) lawyer. (You should have one if you're planning to go international.)

Also, if you have concerns about a publishing contract you can hire a "music" lawyer (about a $1,000 an hour). Your everyday lawyer isn't usually familiar with the music industry and how it works.

Another option would be to just sign a couple tracks at first to see if your publisher will come through for you.

You can also go on-line and find standardized publishing contracts. I still favor the non-exclusive contract. It allows you more freedom to shop your music (or sell it yourself).

As far as copyrights, Derulux's link is the only one you need.

Good luck, John

well, atleast I know theres some hope out there......I do need to learn all that copyright stuff..theres just soooooo much to know, but it will really help me. Well I have your good suggestions, THANX

You don't need to learn ALL the copyright stuff. (That's what lawyers are for.) Just the highlights:

1. The minute you "create" a work, it is yours. Copyright exists upon creation.

2. The above rule doesn't mean diddly in a court of law (when seeking compensation) unless you've filed for (and received) an official copyright.

3. ANYTHING International follows a whole different set of rules depending on which countries are involved (and, of course, what the issue is).

That's pretty much all you need to know to keep your head above water and out of trouble.

Contract law is more interesting, and better to know...if you wanted to learn one of the two.

There's another option which hasn't been mentioned on this thread:

Self-publishing.

You can create discs and MP3's of your music on your computer. You can transcribe your own music into a professional-looking score with software like Finale or Sibelius. And you can distribute your compositions in any form through the internet.

The downside of self-publishing is that you are on your own - it is much harder to reach your audience and somewhat trickier to protect your rights. But the upside is that you don't share your profits with anyone. Every sale you make is 100% yours. And all the rights to the music remain 100% yours.

You still need to overcome the fear of exposing your music to the world. Many people don't realize that this is actually the most difficult step in getting published. Indeed, this is the sole reason I myself don't come forward and self-publish my music: I'm too chicken to do it.

Self-publishing is fine, but you should know one thing about the legal aspects first:

When you sign with a record label, the rights to the work you do usually goes to the label and you are paid royalties. Any lawsuits are taken care of by the label. If you publish on your own, you keep the rights, the full profits, and the full burden of any resultant legal action (which can actually cost enough in fees to bankrupt you, regardless of whether or not you're "in the right").

I imagine this has more of an effect in other artistic fields (authoring/writing comes to mind almost immediately), but it's always good to know.

And if you ARE going to self-publish, you MUST ABSOLUTELY read this first: www.copyright.gov . This is U.S. Copyright law. It's everything you need to know to protect yourself. The quick and skinny:

Under no circumstance should you publish ANYTHING without first obtaining an officially-documented copyright (complete with government-issued number). If you were to publish without such a thing, people could very easily re-distribute your work online and never face legal action because your right to seek compensation is directly tied to whether or not you have an officially-filed copyright.

Second thing: Get the "music world" equivalent of an ISBN number immediately. This is one of the fastest ways to get your CD (or whatever) out to the world...and you can't have the CD stocked in any kind of reputable store without it. (Obviously if you know a friend with a store, they'll probably stock it for you, but I'm talking about a "Tower Records" or something similar.) They use these number-trackers for lookups, order, stocking, and inventory/repurchasing needs.

Yes, you have to pay a fee to acquire one of these. Yes, you have to pay a fee to obtain a copyright. Yes, it's worth it.

Well, hope it helps...I think that's all I really need to say on the subject to help you all stay out of trouble.

$1000/hour??? Ouch! How many lawyers do you get for that?

One.

That's pretty unheard of. You're paying too much.

I think you're right Steve. I did some checking and I found a music attorney that charges only $125 per hour.

Best, John

See. I just saved you $875 per hour. The least you could do is buy me dinner…

Do you like peanut butter and jelly sandwiches?

Actually, I'm not looking for a music lawyer. This is something I was considering once and found the rate to be $1,000 an hour. I guess things have changed since then.

Best, John

That sounds like the difference between an established music lawyer for the stars and one "just gettin started." Something tells me Jessica Simpson pays more than $125/hour.

That's one expensive PB&J!!!

What do you expect? It's Skippy peanut butter!

LOL......ok....what did I miss......haha

Sorry Monica the peanut butter's all gone.

Best, John

Aren't all artistic works protected by copyright automatically upon their creation? If I remember correctly, this has been the case in the U.S. for about 15 years now.

Do I remember wrong?

I think your right Guri.....but then wouldn't there be no proof if someone tried to copy it and claim it as their own?
Derulux would be able to answer that.

With regard to the lawyer, you get what you pay for. But if you have a contract with a major reputable label, they use their own lawyers and you don't have to pay jack ****.

Aren't all artistic works protected by copyright automatically upon their creation? If I remember correctly, this has been the case in the U.S. for about 15 years now.

Do I remember wrong?
Like I said before, any and all U.S. copyright questions are answered at the website I provided (www.copyright.gov). However, I've taken the two seconds to look up the specific answer to your question, appropriately, in the "FAQ" section. And I've provided some "extra" below, in case you don't like reading... :p
Official answer to your question

I forget the exact date the law changed, but you are correct. The work is protected to the limit that you created it and it is yours. But you cannot seek compensatory damages in a court of law without an officially-filed copyright (for which you get a 5 year "deferral", so if the infringement occurs in the first five years, you need to obtain a copyright no later than the end of the 5th year and you can still file a claim...but wait any longer than that and you're SOL & JWF).

I think your right Guri.....but then wouldn't there be no proof if someone tried to copy it and claim it as their own?
Derulux would be able to answer that.

Close. It's actually more of a "you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours" thing with the government. (You don't "put in" [money], they don't "put out" [use your imagination]. :p )

Sure, they claim all sorts of reasons, but it basically boils down to that...and the lack of any ambiguity whatsoever.

For how cheap a copyright is, I still can't believe people actually wrestle with the question of, "Well, should I file for one?" There is one overly-obvious answer: YES! Every time!

Totally untrue. Every artist needs their own attorney. Otherwise the label can (and will) take advantage of you.

For how cheap a copyright is, I still can't believe people actually wrestle with the question of, "Well, should I file for one?" There is one overly-obvious answer: YES! Every time!

$30 isn't cheap. However I send in a collection with maybe 10 pieces, that will knock it down to $3 per piece.

Best, John

Totally untrue. Every artist needs their own attorney. Otherwise the label can (and will) take advantage of you.
The only time an artist really needs a lawyer with regards to a label is during the signing of a contract, if the individual does not trust the label, or does not understand "normal business practices" (which seems to happen quite a bit with musicians until they get burned a couple times). Two things, now: 1. If you don't trust the label, why work for them? and 2. What you would normally consider needing a "lawyer" for can easily be accomplished by a good agent (contracts, etc).

The only time you really need a lawyer is if you want to sue the label....


$30 isn't cheap. However I send in a collection with maybe 10 pieces, that will knock it down to $3 per piece.

You're right...when you're talking possible infringements in the hundreds of thousands of dollars, $30 is huge.

Here's a clue: If you're really worried about $30, then you need to step back and ask yourself just how good is whatever you wrote? And if $30 is such a big deal, then maybe you should consider an alternative career path that doesn't have anything to do with protecting intellectual property. While you're at it, cancel the life insurance plan from Colonial for $6 a month, because that's ridiculous to pay, too...especially for what it offers...I mean, you won't even benefit from it! Man, what a scam.... :rolleyes:

I've copyrighted a couple hundred tracks. That $30 multiplies quite quickly.

Besides these government monopolies annoy the heck out of me. I can just imagine all the screw-ups that will occur if one ever needed the original manuscript from the copyright office for a lawsuit.

Just last year one of my copyrights came back. The copyright office informed me there was no check with it. Of course I knew there was. A week later I got my check back from them stating there was no copyright form, just a check – duh.

That place must be a chaotic nightmare. And this was just one of many times they screwed up. And another thing, they’re as slow as molasses in January. Why should it take 6-7 months to get a copyright back?

It's time the courts start honoring other means of copyrights. Of course that won't ever happen since they all work for the same boss (Uncle Sam).

John

You've pointed out two very important things:

1. If you don't ever intend to make more than $30 off it, and don't think it has the potential to do so, then don't bother filing for a copyright.

2. The government works extremely efficiently. In fact, we know the following must be true, that, if the opposite of pro is con, we know the opposite of progress is...

2a. Here's an interesting tidbit for those who have credit problems: Lexington Law Firm .

The above link takes you to a law firm that will "guaranteed" repair any and all credit problems you may have (regardless of whether or not it was your fault). Here's the law they take advantage of to do it:

They write to the credit agencies requesting proof of each item on a person's credit report. By law, the credit agency has 30 days to respond. If they fail to respond (and you can see from the copyright office how great these institutions are at "paperwork"), they must take the item off of your credit report.

The law firm will write them every month until the office fails to respond...and they are successful because they blitz the office with hundreds or even thousands of these letters at a time. Sooner or later (usually within 3-6 months), the credit bureaus f* up and fail to respond within the time limit. And you win.

#1 - hogwash, why should the government get even a $30 piece of the action. They're already robbing us blind through taxation.

#2 - you must be living in fantasyland.

#2a - Interesting, but has nothing to do with this debate.

John

1. You seem to fail to realize that the only (technically read: "primary") way the government makes money is through taxes. In this case, it's not even a tax...it's a fee for a service. That's even more than reasonable, comparatively-speaking.

2. You clearly missed the point of what I said. (Finish the sentence...maybe you'll figure it out... )

2a. I'm not debating anything, just pointing things out you may have overlooked or perhaps never thought of.

And the government manages our fees so well considering the national debt is only a little over 8 trillion dollars and growing 2.2 million per day. Now that's reasonable.

John

It might be helpful if you disclose how you've come to these conclusions. Have you ever had a record deal? A publishing deal? Anything? Have you ever used the services of a lawyer for music-related business? Have you ever had an agent? Upon what basis are you making these statements?

It's certainly not a perfect system, but it is without a doubt the best system in the world. Try being an artist in China where there is no copyright protection at all. The glass isn't half-empty, it's half-full.

That argument is as old as the hills. Just because something exists that's worse, doesn't mean we have to settle with what we have.

Don’t feel so bad you lost your eye son, I know a man that lost both eyes and a foot. Thanks dad, I feel so much better now.

Besides the majority of workers in China only earn our equivalent of 25 cents per hour. It would take them months to earn enough to copyright one song.

John

It might be helpful if you disclose how you've come to these conclusions. Have you ever had a record deal? A publishing deal? Anything? Have you ever used the services of a lawyer for music-related business? Have you ever had an agent? Upon what basis are you making these statements?

Ah, adults and their constant disbelief and need of proof. (This is why I hate teaching adults...so cynical, skeptical, closed-minded...they think they know everything.)

Fine. I won't tell you everything about me, but I will tell you this: I'm an internationally published poet working on my first novel deal. I used to be a part of a jazz band that put out a couple CDs (locally). I wasn't the leader of the group, but I took care of the business side of things. I went to school for mechanical engineering, but wound up getting a dual-degree in that and business-marketing. I use the latter half of my degree and not the former.

I've consulted with three non-profits in Philadelphia. One was a retail venture, one was the legendary fight club used in the "Rocky" films, and the last was a small local record label trying to help urban kids "get heard". I got the consulting job for the last venture because of my work with my university's own record label and recording studio.

This is where I'm going to stop. I think the above should be sufficient, even for an adult.


Besides the majority of workers in China only earn our equivalent of 25 cents per hour. It would take them months to earn enough to copyright one song.

This, of course, excludes the purchasing power parity of money....

That argument is as old as the hills. Just because something exists that's worse, doesn't mean we have to settle with what we have.
You're absolutely right, but do you have any idea what would happen to the U.S. if the government stopped charging us in taxes and fees?

And the government manages our fees so well considering the national debt is only a little over 8 trillion dollars and growing 2.2 million per day. Now that's reasonable.
National debt isn't always a bad thing...in fact, sometimes it's very good. Take an economics class sometime. You might learn something. (Hint: Right now, having a debt is not such a bad thing.)

OK Johnny Boy... a few questions:

1. So are you saying that the government should offer copyright registration, archiving & retrieval free of charge?

2. Are you aware of any copyright cases where the government dropped the ball?

3. How would you improve the system?

One thing that is not in dispute are the record companies that have attempted or succeeded in taking advantage of artists, songwriters or producers who have filed baseless copyright infringement lawsuits, or consumers who have stolen copyrighted music. Where our government has acted irresponsibly on this is a mystery to me. Oh, wait... you're the guy who has the $1000/hour attorney. You're obviously the expert here...

Nothing I get from the government is free. I’ve already paid tenfold for any service they could offer me. I’d rather by-pass them completely. However they make the laws and I’m a law abiding dude.

Sorry, I told you once before I didn't actually hire the lawyer. I was just checking out the going rate at the time. Do often have these memory lapses?

No I’m not aware of any specific cases. But I’ve had many encounters with the copyright office and I can say it’s certainly a chaotic and unorganized place – and they’ve made many mistakes.

How would I improve the system? Start allowing other means of copyright to be used in court.

John

Actually, I doubt you have. The infrastructure of our cities and towns costs billions of dollars. Every sidewalk, road, sign, streetlight, maintenance worker, policeman, firefighter, etc. is paid for by the government (both local and federal). Unless your income is very large and are taxed accordingly, you haven't paid for the benefits you receive.

There are millions of people paying for these services. If you have a thousand people paying for a loaf of bread - I think charging them each $10 is a little overkill.

Besides government is well known for their extravagant waste and fraudulent practices. Not to mention all those people that are allowed to milk the system.

John

I’d rather by-pass them completely.
While you're at it, let's just disband the government all together. Why not? Afterwards, you can always claim, "It seemed like a good idea at the time."

Do often have these memory lapses?
I think this statement ribs itself without any extra help. I just wanted to point out the irony of it (some might call it "poetic justice" :p ) for the benefit of all.

How would I improve the system? Start allowing other means of copyright to be used in court.
1. There is only one means of copyright...upon creation, copyright automatically exists.

2. Understanding item #1, I'd like to see a restatement with some actual ideas, rather than the standard, "Let's just do something else."

Unless your income is very large and are taxed accordingly, you haven't paid for the benefits you receive.
And even then, how do you put a price tag on the safety and security of your nation? (The annual Defense budget is around $260 billion dollars...I'm pretty sure nobody's currently paying that kind of money in taxes on their own.)

Besides government is well known for their extravagant waste and fraudulent practices.
You're really not aware of how the government purchases, are you? (I take statements like this to be "rumored truth" that is not factual...usually spread like a message-board virus.) I beg of you give me one instance of extravagant waste and fraudulent practices that is both provable and was the result of government and not of a singular individual/group later tried and found responsible.

I finally figured it out Derulux. You either work for the government or you’re getting government handouts. BINGO!

Rule #1:
Never get in an argument with a bureaucrat.

John

Ah, I've got it. You're a liberal! (In all honesty, I kind of knew, but this solidifies it.)

Every time a liberal starts losing an argument (which usually happens quickly, because their argument is rarely based on fact in the first place), they try to change the subject, frequently attacking the individual who is undermining their "attempted wisdom" rather than directly addressing the issues.

Rule #1: Never get in an argument with a liberal.

Rule #2: If you must get in an argument with a liberal, see rule number one.

Libertarian – mostly. How you concluded a "liberal" is beyond me. Are you a socialist?

Losing an argument? Only in your mind's kind.

I decided I'll let you have the last word on this debate - since it's not going anywhere.

John

Why all the hostility? I asked you a few questions and you respond with hostility. Does that mean your position can't stand on it's own? I think someone once posted the following on this board:
Apparently that applies to non-adults too.

And yes, I'm an adult. I was under the impression that we were discussing entertainment law. Is that something that only non-adults can understand? Or are you the stereotypical youth that has everything figured out? By the way, I may not be as old as you think...

Since you seem to have the world by the tail, I won't address this to you, but to the others that might be interested:

An attorney's job is to protect his/her client's interests. Therefore, by definition, an attorney retained by a record label, publishing company, etc. is NOT there to protect you, but his/her client. Get your own attorney. Make sure they have entertainment experience. Better yet, get a referral from someone who has been around the block a few times (yes, probably an adult).

"An attorney's job is to protect his/her client's interests. Therefore, by definition, an attorney retained by a record label, publishing company, etc. is NOT there to protect you, but his/her client. Get your own attorney. Make sure they have entertainment experience. Better yet, get a referral from someone who has been around the block a few times (yes, probably an adult)."-Steve

Very well said!!!

Why am I reminded of Islamic outrage at Danish cartoons? There is no reason to be emotional about discussing these issues.

Much as I would like to engage in a political discussion these off topic discussion are not allowed at PW because there have been ugly disputes in the past. Take it to that other forum or the new coffee room.

What we're talking about is a service our government offers to protect intellectual property, copyright. There is no way to privatize this service. The $30 service fee represents an investment in your work. A private business would probably charge several hundred dollars, simply because it could. That's called elasticity of demand and the amount charged would represent the price that would yield maximum profit. It would have nothing to do with the actual cost of providing the service. The way our government is currently operating there would be no competition to drive down the price because only one company would be awarded the "no bid" contract.

As for this argument I'll note that Johnny was the one who started the personal attack by concluding, "You either work for the government or you’re getting government handouts." rather than answering Derulux's specific arguments. Personal attacks will get you banned from this forum, please refrain.

You're absolutely right, Steve. Let's keep it on point.

Actually there have been attempts at this, although I don't know whether these companies are still in business or whether this has ever been tested in court. When I lived in LA in the early 1990's I was aware of a service (called "the vault" or similar), that basically functioned as a secure archiving service should the need ever arise to defend a client's copyright. The service was roughly half of what the government was charging at the time. The whole thing made me nervous as the company's longevity couldn't be guaranteed. I've always opted for the tried-and-true method.

Yes, I've heard of these services, but as Derulux pointed out, the courts don't recognize other means of copyright - and there's the problem. I could go down town and have my manuscript notarized for $5. Why doesn’t the system recognize that as a copyright equivalent?

All the government copyright proves is on a particular date you declared the work to be your property. You can do that just as well using a notary.

John

Derulux is the guy who thinks you don't need an attorney to sign a record deal. I wouldn't put much stock in what he says.

As to your point, I don't think a court has ever ruled that such a service is inadmissable. But again, I wouldn't personally use such a service -- not because of the risk of inadmissability, but because of the risk of the company going out of business.

Yes, I've heard of these services, but as Derulux pointed out, the courts don't recognize other means of copyright - and there's the problem. I could go down town and have my manuscript notarized for $5. Why doesn’t the system recognize that as a copyright equivalent?

All the government copyright proves is on a particular date you declared the work to be your property. You can do that just as well using a notary.
Ever lived in a small town where the notary is a close friend of yours? Well, let's say you and that close friend decide to take it to a copyrighted work, and the notary notarizes a forgery and pre-dates it so that the date is earlier than the filed copyright of the document you're contesting.... This is just one of the reasons there is only ONE way to register your copyright. (Note: You keep saying you're "getting a copyright" from the government. You're not. Copyright exists from the moment of creation. What you're doing is registering that copyright and putting it on file.)

Derulux is the guy who thinks you don't need an attorney to sign a record deal. I wouldn't put much stock in what he says.
That's not what I said. I'll thank you kindly to stop misquoting me.

There are two types of artists who need lawyers when signing a record deal:
1. Those ignorant of contract law, contracts in general, and/or the business into which they are going. (This could very well be a large group, and to them I would recommend that, if they do not trust their agent who brokered the deal, they should get an attorney and a new agent.)

2. Those too lazy to read the damn contract.

As to your point, I don't think a court has ever ruled that such a service is inadmissable. But again, I wouldn't personally use such a service -- not because of the risk of inadmissability, but because of the risk of the company going out of business.

:rolleyes: NONE of you have gone to the website I provided. It's clear you're continuing to argue that which you assume is true, but really don't know what you're talking about. :rolleyes: again

These things (notary, mailing the document to yourself in a sealed envelope, etc.) USED to be allowed in court. Then, when the law was changed (nearly 30 years ago), due to more than just the one reason I mentioned above, these methods were no longer acceptable or admissible in court.

Now, the ONLY WAY you can even go to court to seek compensation (in this country) is if you have registered and filed your copyright with the US Copyright Office. You can go to court anytime you want, and even prove you created the document first (via one of the other methods), but you are not protected so far as to seek compensation until you have registered and filed with the Copyright Office. (This is probably the seventh or eighth time I've said this, and yet it is clear that very few have understood it.)

Prove it.

From the US Copyright website:
Where did I misquote you? Are you not saying that there are some people who do not need an attorney when signing a record deal? Oh, and I haven't seen anything from that could be described as "kindly"...

Have you ever seen an actual record contract? Don't bother responding -- I already know the answer.

You're assuming that those are two different people.

You're so "green" that you don't know what you don't know. And that's too bad, because while others at your stage in life are learning from those who have experience, you're too busy spouting off about things you know very little about. Quite a shame...

Prove it.
Well, this proves that you clearly don't know anything about US Copyright Law, and certainly did not check out the link I offered. Normally, I would not do this, but since you've been rather callous from the beginning, here is the proof you needed, from the source I've already pointed out (the US Copyright Office itself):
US Copyright Office FAQ (specifically queued to your question, so there can be no confusion...hopefully...)

From the US Copyright website:
*laughs* Well, at least you did some homework.... What you have written is correct (and I should certainly hope so, since you copy-and-pasted it), but you clearly don't understand its implications. "Protection" and "ability to seek remedies in a court of law" are NOT the same thing. (This should be cleared up when you check the FAQ link I provided.)

Don't feel bad...about 85-90% of Americans do not understand copyright law at all, or at best, only understand the old copyright laws.

You'll forgive me if I laugh at this. After failing to understand copyright law, I cannot take much of anything you say seriously. And if you consider yourself to be among "those who have experience," well, people are certainly allowed their own delusions. If anybody else considers you among "those who have experience," God help "the rest of us"....

Your link proves nothing. All the FAQ states is that there's no provision in the law for "poor man's copyright". In other words, the law is silent. That means that it's up to a judge to interpret the law in a case brought before him. I don't believe the "poor man's copyright" has ever been tested. You claimed that it was OK until the law changed 30 years ago. Simply not true. It's never been addressed legislatively. That's what I was asking you to prove -- and you haven't.

But that's OK. While you're racking up another 1500+ posts in only 6 months time telling people everything you think you know about the music business, I'll be doing actual work in my studio (yes, the one I paid for from doing music), then coming home to my house (the one I own from doing music). Of course, there's nothing wrong with being active on a forum like this. The tragedy is that in ten years, if you're lucky, you'll start to figure out how ridiculous your behavior was and it will be late in the game for you to get going in a career.

Ok, I'm done being nice. Read the following (taken from the last link I gave you) and get a clue. This is my last post on the subject.

No. In general, registration is voluntary. Copyright exists from the moment the work is created. You will have to register, however, if you wish to bring a lawsuit for infringement of a U.S. work. See Circular 1, Copyright Basics

adventures in missing the point...

I'm done with you.