Demo Reel questions
 

Hey guys,

I've recently started to gather my material to make a demo reel to send out to companies. I was wondering what are certain rules I need to follow that I may not be aware of?

For example, what kind of music can I use? Can I use copyrighted music from say, Metallica (bad example...how about Sepultura)?

Should I stay clear from using copyright material for my demo reel? If need be, I can compose my own music. I am a guitarist and I use Acid to make my drum patterns and whatever else I need.

Anyway, can I or should I use copyrighted songs for my demo reel?

Thanks in advance.

With some minor exceptions copyright law doesn't care what use you're putting the material to. To use copyright music in your demo reel you must license it from the copyright owner just like for any other use. Write your own, use royalty fee music, or license the tunes you use.

Hi Steve,

Does this qualify under those minor exceptions? Do employers normally ask for proof of licensing? Will it really affect my chances at getting the job I apply for?

How does one go about licensing big name songs and it is possible without any money or for a small fee? It's not like I'm going to mass produce this and sell it so would they be more leniant with the price tag?

-Roger

Roger, one goes about licensing big-name songs by paying HUGE licensing fees to a performing rights organization like BMI or ASCAP. I doubt a potential employer will ask for proof of licensing, unless they work for an interested party like a label or a PRO.

You might think twice about doing it, though. Going to the trouble of making your own music for your reel will speak volumes about your talent and integrity as a business-minded artist.

Some people consider it amateur or lazy to use copyrighted music without permission (I've been put in my place before). Others, like industry people, of course loathe the idea.

At the very least, it could unintentionally send a message that you don't know any better, which is still not a good impression to make on an employer. Keep in mind this is only my opinion. Good luck, show us the reel when it's done...

Roger,

There is a wide variety royalty free buyout music available at reasonable prices. If you a serious about what your doing, why not do it the right way and the professional way. Check out sopersound.com, music2hues.com or a host of others.

Regards

I don't think you realisticly need to license anything unless your getting paid for the work. There's a difference between a demo reel shocasing what you can do and an actual production that your trying to sell for cash.

I wouldn't worry too much about it.

I my self have used popular music in my personal demo reel...and I have made countless company, director, DP and actor demo reels using popular music. It isn't an issue. People don't care what music you use, as long as it matches the mood of the demo you are showing. No one yet has said "we aren't hiring you because you used popular music in your demo reel."

And I have been on the hiring end too and don't care what music choice is made. Except for swear words...avoid music with swear words.

This is the attitude in Los Angeles, at least. it is a demo reel, not something you are selling for a profit, showing in front of a large audience nor airing on TV.

You are fine with popular music.

Just remember that "popular music" is also "someone else's work" and copyright laws & licensing exist for a reason.

It's true that no one will probably sue you. But when you use someone else's music, especially very big-name artists, realize you're borrowing the power of that song and all the cultural meaning and baggage it carries with it. That's not very satisfying to me, personally, it just seems too easy; anyone can do it.

If it's a really well-known song it can overwhelm your work and push it in the background. I don't think that's conducive to showcasing your work. Just one opinion among many.

I think Benjamin makes some very good points.

Thanks for all the advice guys.

I'm going to go the more complicated route and create my own music. I just want to avoid any hassles of legality and the like. Besides, if I can score my own flicks, why not score my own reel? heh.

Thanks for all the advice guys. Very much appreciated.

-Roger

The oft quoted beliefs that you don't need licensing if it's not for commerical purposes or you don't make any money on it or it's only a demo, or you only make X number of copies, or if you give away the copies without any money changing hands, or if you bought the CD, etc etc etc, some of which several posters in this thread have suggested, are all untrue. The long and short of it is, if you don't own the copyright or have the necessary licenses from those who do, you can't use it. Period. End of story. The only exceptions are spelled out in the "fair use" doctrine which absolutely and positively DOES NOT apply here.

As for using it for a demo reel sent to prospective employers, consider this. Even disregarding whether you're likely to get caught making an infringing copy, would YOU hire someone to work for you producing work that you are going to protect with copyright yourself, knowing that person is a copyright scofflaw and would have no qualms about appropriating your property for his own use without your permission? Kind like going into a job interview with a spiffy new briefcase and bragging to the interviewer about how you got away with shoplifting a sharp outfit so you'd look your best on the job when he hires you LOL. If you're seeking a job in broadcasting or entertainment or film/video production, or music production, or whatever where intellectual property rights are considered a vital part of the business assets, you want to convery the impression that you're the consumate professional in that as well as the technical and artsitic aspects of the business.

There are a lot of decent sources for royalty free music whose licensing fees are very reasonable, well within the tightest budget. If you don't have the chops to write and perform your own (I certainly don't!) using them will more likely convey to prospective employers that you are a savy professional who understands the business more than would using obviously "borrowed" music.

The fact remains that no one is going to sue you if you use an unlicensed song in your demo reel that your not getting paid for and if they did I doubt any court would hear it.

True, but it could prove costly to find that out for sure. another question though, wouldn't the clips you are using for the reel already be scored with appropriate music? or are you talking about putting some music under slates etc? and if you can produce the music yourself do it! show off all your talents.

You might not get sued, right away, but since you're circulating that demo reel to people who by and large are VERY protective of their intellectual property there's a very good chance one of them will bring your reel to the attention of a copyright holder of some of the material you've used and you'll soon be getting a cease and desist letter that requires you to go and retrieve all the copies you've sent out or else you'll be sued, not to mention creating a very bad impression among the people you want to have offer you work. And courts DO hear those cases all the time - the fact an individual doesn't hear about them every day doesn't mean they're not going on. There are several people on this very forum who are themselves IP attorneys, or report their spouses are, who's full time job it is to seek out and prosecute precisely the sort of infringment that you think nobody is going to notice.

I once read a posting from wedding videographer who didn't worry about using copyright music since none of his work was ever distributed beyond the wedding couple so how're they gonna know, right? Well, one of his client couples showed their video at their first anniversary party and guess what ... the date for the evening of one of the party guests just happened to be an IP attorney on the staff of the record company that owned the rights to several of the music pieces he had used. By noon the next day a process server had handed him a cease and desist order. You just never know when cutting corners is going to turn around and bite you on the backside.

Consider who are you sending the demo and resume to asking them to hire you ... broadcasters, film studios, corporate communications departments, advertising agencies, training organizations, etc. None of these media professionals are likely to touch a copyright scofflaw with a 10 foot pole.

This kind of trashyness doesn't surprise me coming out of the recording industry these days. I have little respect for an industry that sues it's fans.

agree with benjamin hill
 

i have been using only popular music for my work as i have just been self educating and working for free. the distraction/smoothing that a van halen or red hot chili peppers song creates is something to consider.

a couple of my edits came out wonderfully and i regret that i used popular music on the last couple, only because now i am limited as to what i can do with them. one had potential commercial value but it would be too much work to go back and change it.

point: if you are going to go pro you will not be able to use it anyway. the first couple projects is no big deal and fun- but may as well get into the groove. and no doubt, there is endless great unsigned music out there available you. also get the artists giving you free exposure because they are going to show it around. bonus!!
aerosmith will not.

This copyright argument ultimately breaks down into two mutually exclusive camps: those who think it’s wrongful theft; and those who see the shades of gray. While, unfortunately, the first camp essentially wins because they have the law on their side, these big copyright owning companies should remember it’s the aspiring artists of today who will one day make them large sums of money, so maybe they should employ some common sense when sending out Cease and Desist orders and altogether suing people who are not trying to steal from them but just trying to use all the tools they would have at their disposal if they were professionally funded.

The truth is they don’t care about the little guy using their music. The only reason they sue is to make an example of someone once in awhile in attempt to control people through fear so it doesn’t get too out of hand. And while I wouldn’t want the whole world thinking they could use my owned music anyway they want, I would only really care if you were using it in some extreme way: porn, hate videos….

For god’s sake, wedding videos, demo reels, aspiring artist music videos, Indie films…get a grip, I can’t stand the everything is black and white law book which can’t possibly apply to every situation because the world is full of shades of gray.

So to all who choose to break the law because you have common sense and can see the light…if you get caught, I hope you don’t get sued. Cause you’ll lose.

Down with the little guy! Jail Martha Stewart! Live long Haliburton!! (insert trumpets) All Hail to the god of money!! Let it trump all common sense from here on out!!!

BTW, as a side note, I made an Indie short film that uses copyrighted music, so I faxed the BIG company who owns the copyright, and after four increasingly aggressive faxes over two months they finally sent me an email requesting info so they could draw up a contract. It’s now been another three months since I last heard from them and don’t get the impression I ever will. I’m done with the project and will now send it out WITH the copyrighted music. There will be producers and agents and managers who think I’m a law breaking scoundrel who should be sent directly to Hell. But I don’t care. I tried to do the right thing. And even that is just Sync rights for festivals. What are the rights to use it as a demo? I don’t need Master Use rights. I need No-Money-To-Be-Exchanged-Never-To-Be-Seen-By-Anyone-Except-Those-In-The-Business-Who-Can-Hire-Me rights. Oh, and I also need Give-The-Project-To-A-Few-Friends-And-Family-And-Maybe-Even-Present-It-In-My-Own-Residence rights. How much you want for that? The music fits perfectly and I’m going to put my best foot forward. How dare someone call me a thief. Give me a legal reasonable alternative and I’ll do it. Before i-tunes came out I was a scum sucking dirty rotten thief whore who would steal music online. The moment a viable legal alternative came out, I jumped onboard. Thief this.

Maybe in a couple months I'll update my post from jail. Cause, clearly, that's where I belong. I'm a horrible, horrible human full of treachery and debacle. I need chains and a straight jacket and a dark musty room to ruminate on my indiscretions. Actually, if I consider my situation, I'm not far from that now. Tempt not a desperate man. Help me help ME. (hell of a mood I'm in)

Look at it from the other shoe however. You have invested thousands of dollars in equipment and many, many hours learning to use it properly. You have discovered you have a special talent for some creative skilss and have spent hundreds or thousands more hours honing your raw talent into a set of skills that allows you to produce work that someone else will actually pay to enjoy. You spent even more money and hundreds more hours creating a project that turned out pretty damn good. Do you think it should be open season for anyone to use as they see fit, without returning anything to you in compensation for the time and money you put into creating it? I seriously doubt it. So what is it about a popular song on a CD that you can buy in a record store that makes it fair game? Is it just that the record company's and popular artists pockets are deeper than our's that makes using their property acceptable when using our property would not be? I'm reminded of Will Lomax who, when asked why he robbed banks, replies "Because that's where the money is." I'd like to think there was a higher standard of ethics in play than simply anything that you can get away with is okay.

Excellent points - and there is some very high quality music available from sources such as Magnatunes.com that is far from the cheesy, overused stuff people generally think of library music as being that can be licensed and used legally for just a few dollars. I think Magnatunes even allows for free licensing for some uses as long as you fill in the paperwork and give them credit.

If your film is intended for festival release, with unlicensed copyright music in its soundtrack no audience will ever see it because no legitimate festival will ever accept it. And how would you feel if someone stripped off the soundtrack, recut the picture, added their own soundtrack, entered the result in Sundance and won top honors, all without consulting you, crediting you, or paying you a penny? That's exactly what you're doing when you use poplular music without license. What makes it okay for you to do it with a record company and/or some big name talent's property but not okay for someone to do it with yours? Is it that they're bigger than you that makes them fair game? They're a corporation and you're not? Nobody really needs to be that rich but you need all of your money to live on? What's the deciding factor that makes it okay?

I don't think your analogy is a good one. I'm not changing their music. And I made many efforts to contact them for the Sync rights. I realize I won't get in festivals with their music, which is why I'm upset. It's a perfect fit. Anything locally made will not fit as well, but that's what I have to do. My point was I'm going to send it to managers, agents, producers...as is with the copyright music b/c it is a clearer representation of what I could do for them when we can get music clearances. But there isn't any legal contract in place that I'm aware of for demo purposes only where no money is exchanged and no public will see it. Until that happens, I'll be using the demo as is and replacing copyrighted music for festivals.

I feel your pain about popular music. I have my ideas when I'm bummin around listening to music I own and like, not when I'm sitting at the computer listening to Stock Company XYZ, Feelgood Hits CD #9.

More difficult still is getting rights from defunct bands/lables. Some stuff I like I can't even buy CD's of anymore. OTOH I'm paranoid to use the stuff, since sure enough the moment I cut a DVD for my friends some suit would swing down and sue a music fan.

Which kind of proves how much the music industry DOES NOT want you to listen to music. CD cases stickered shut, stuff you can't make a mix cd out of, DRM, copyright measures that erringly crash computers, etc. They can't try much harder. If they don't want people to listen to music then they shouldn't publish it. This is where all the cool little label-less buskers come in that play just to be heard. Most real artists don't make a living at art. They do it because they want to make art.

But managers, agents, and producers are the very people who are MOST likely to be very, very protective of intellectual property rights. Yes, not all of them are, but the vast majority certainly. When you want them to hire you, that's exactly who you do not want to give the impression that you just don't care about the very thing that their businesses and livelyhoods depend on.

And the fact remains, there is nothing in the law that grants any exemption to the copyright and licensing requirements for copies that are going to be distributed without monetary gain or exchange. What the copyright owner or licensing clearinghouse will require to grant you a license may very well be dependent on your potential economic benefit from its use but the fact remains, if you make a copy for any purpose other than the few exceptions spelled out in law, you gotta have the license.

As an aside, it's interesting to read all the credits at the end of a theatrical film paying particular attention to the music credits. OFten there's a ton of selections that appear nowhere in the foreground sound in the movie. But when you think back, the piece being referred to was on the radio in the background, or playing on a bar jukebox while dialog and action was going on in foreground, etc, etc - sometimes it's just a few bars or a phrase or two. But every single speck of them is licensed and credited.

You're 100% right, Steve. In the court of law I lose this battle (although, I'd hope the judge or jury would consider both my intention and the lack of any practical consquences for the copyright owner).

In the court of opinion, I may piss off the very people I'm trying to impress. It's a risk I'm willing to take. I can only hope they too see my intention.

And while I respect the need for laws, the bigger part of me knows that laws can not cover all situations, there's always shades of gray. Sometimes a fair course of action may require breaking the current law. That's how laws evolve.

Essentially, this is an individual decision based on many factors pertinent only to this particular situation, including my belief that both the BIG COMPANY and the ARTIST will not lose any money, nor be upset by the content of my film.

Should there be a helicopter circling over my house?

As I see it, it's not even about money- it's about artistic integrity. Why should anyone NEED to have a certain piece of music for their thing to work? If a film or video work can't stand up on its own and has to "borrow" the power of someone else's music to be watchable, what does that say about the skills of the maker?

It's not just about breaking the law; it's about taking the art of filmmaking seriously and having respect for the craft. That's way more important than the fear of getting sued, in my book.

I don't feel the need to defend myself. I know my heart and my skills. Good luck with your ventures.

I'm happy that you have to this point Jeff. Unless I missed it, no-one has replied to your point that you were ignored when trying to do the right thing. I feel your frustration - I recently tried to gain access to a train station for a brief shoot. I was happy to comply with their guidelines (being supervised, non-peak hours) but they would never return my calls. So I'll go guerilla.

When it comes to copyright, lets not forget that while its (original) intention is to protect artists, its practical use regularly involves generating profit for profits sake. An ill in this world that all pervades almost all aspects of our existence. It too frequently makes a mockery of good values and intentions.

Insert icon of little man stepping off soapbox.

Almost - but I think you've misunderstood it purpose. Protecting the artist's ability to profit for the sake of profit is EXACTLY why it exists, protecting one's ability to profit from the fruits of one's labours. Artists must eat and pay the rent just like everyone else. The property rights granted by copyright enables artists to practice their art by insuring that they are able continue to profit from their work even after it leaves their immediate control by publishing to the public - that no one else can divert away from the creator the revenue gained by any use of the work. Now you might object "But Sony Studios isn't an artist." True, but the original creative artists sold the rights to their work to Sony and made their profit thereby. Sony would not have bought those rights if they had not anticipated their own ability to make a profit from them. So indirectly, protecting Sony's right to make a profit is also protecting the original creative artist's right to earn an income from his art because Sony would not employ him if it couldn't profit from his work in the same manner as the oiriginal creator might.

So... if Bam Margera wasn't a blood releative to CKY, and had to cut Landspeed with stock rock, and if it sucked, then Bam would've gone down in the books as someone with no skills?

Sure, great video should be able to work with anything, but I like the legal damnations better, lofty and unapproachable as they are. Just because someone likes music doesn't mean they are talentless. How many stock cd's will I have to buy to find a song with the same pacing, vocals and optomistic panderings of Mudhoney's "Good enough"? If I can coax Mudhoney into letting me use the song, do things the way I envisioned, then suddenly I have talent? Still sounds like money stuff to me, unless being a producer who can hook up with anyone implies artisitic qualities.

Edit:
"The Venture Brothers" guys spent a fortune licensing the music used in the intro of the season two premiere. Maybe it would've worked with stock music, but as it was I think it was three minutes of some of the coolest TV I've seen this year. I'm really glad Doc Hammer and co were able to purchase the skills that let them create what they did (especially since they wrote the song).

Of course not; if you can afford to license that song it means you have $. My point is that creativity CAN'T be bought or borrowed.

I'm gonna guess...20 or 30, that's a good band right there. If you respect the band and the song that much, don't let anything stop you from getting their permission to use it. Getting their blessing would make it even more meaningful.

But if the protections weren't in place, any old filmmaker, talented and well-meaning or not, could use Mudhoney's music, as much as they want, and dilute the music with their own "art"!

Jeff, I agree, there is no need to defend yourself. I don't think anyone was attacking you, or your heart or your skills.

Now, I might take issue with an ARGUMENT you make, but it stops there. Nothing personal. I stand by my own arguments but I know they are fair game.

I appreciate that, Benjamin. This, apparently, is one of those hot button issues. I am personally involved right now, and unhappy with the spot I'm in. The thing that upsets me is that I conceived two sequences (with popular music in mind) knowing I would pay for the Sync rights for festivals. It's not the power of the song alone that makes the sequence, it's the combination of the music, the lyrics, the images, and the idea behind the image. The sequence together creates a joke, so to remove part of the recipe would lessen its impact.

I suppose the cause of the problem is that I conceived the sequence as a whole, instead of writing, filming, then conceiving the score from what was created. I'm sure I'll find something to work close enough for festivals, but I still stand by the lack of a legal contract for demo work.

I personally think that our current copyright laws are antiquated dinosaurs and need to be changed. But I'm not a Congressman (thank whatever god you care to thank), so my point is a moot point.

It just seems obvious to me that if a piece of work that makes use of another piece of work isn't going to produce any income, then the artist of the "used" piece of work isn't missing out on any income. If anything, they're getting free advertising. So long as the used work is properly attributed, I just don't for the life of me see what the problem is in these situations. And yes, Steve, I'd let anyone in the world use anything of mine in any way they wanted to as long as they credited me for the work used. If they started to make money with my work, that's a different story.

But again, I ain't a lawyer or a congressman, so I don't get to have an opinion. That applies to just about every other aspect of public life as well. Rich people have always and will always get their way, and there's no sense in complaining about it, at the end of the day.

So you give away a DVD containing a pop song off of a commercial CD synched to your images. According to your argument no money changed hands so why would it matter. But why would anyone who loved the song go out and buy a copy of the CD when they could have the song for free, at the same quality as the CD, on your DVD? So the artist has lost a sale even though you didn't actually sell his work yourself and hold on to money - the bottom line is he still lost a sale and is out the moneys he could have earned just as much as if you had sold your video for a profit without cutting him in on the action. As far as I'm concerned, you simply don't have to right to divert your neighbor's property to your own use without his permission, whether that property is his lawn-mower, his car, his bank account, or the terrific song he wrote. You may welcome anyone's use of your work and that is admirable - I'd probably take the same stance that you'd be welcome to use mine unless you make a profit BUT I don't want someone else just assuming it's okay without going through the formality of asking. You simply don't have the right to say that because these are MY standards no one alse has the right to be more restrictive. OTOH, they do have the right to expect you to honor their decisions about your use of their work. If you can't get an answer to your requests to use the music in question, that seems a pretty clear message that they don't want you to use it and I think you're honor-bound to accept their wishes in the matter.

That's right. Don't get mad, get rich :)

In theory at least, if the song is any good, the listener would read the credits and go buy the cd of this awesome band. I've been doing that since I could afford the Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure vinyl. I've no idea how many hundreds of CD's I've bought since, after hearing a song in a movie/tv show.

Of course by the same argument CD sales shouldn't matter anyway and good bands should be able to live off of good concert attendence. And theories don't put kerosene in the LearJet so that's just my opinion.

I think similar happens on Youtube everyday. How many thousands of videos on YT have a song in the background?
There are two differences between us and the youtube crowd. We are honoring copyright law and they are not. We are talking on a message board and they are making videos.

I had a huge diatribe on this but I am siding with the wrong side of the law, and it's silly to justify it. Stealing music in the name of great video is as legally justifiable as getting pulled over for speeding and going "But I'm an artist who is late for a shoot". I do hope someone evaluating my work can appreciate my editting/shooting/storytelling skills over my ability to pay huge fees to faceless companies, but I'll burn that bridge when I get there.

When I made my first big video last year, I preceeded it with an "illegal disclaimer" regarding the soundtrack. It'll get a light update with points from these discussions, and be affixed to my home videos/demos that use music. Those viewers interested in movies and those interested in litigation can then view as they feel fit.

Stealing canvas might make someone a criminal but they are no less of a painter. Painting in jail might be rough, but noone changes the world with their hands in their pockets.

The tricky part about these situations is that there's no way to prove whether any sales have been lost or not; this is a tricky point for those on both sides of the argument. You can claim that the artist has lost a sale in this case without any real proof that this is what's actually happening, and I can argue that the exact opposite is true with the same level of rationality. Since there's no way to prove either point based on actual evidence, making an argument for or against royalty-free use on not-for-profit projects with proper attribution (when based on the "artist loses sales" proposition) is logically impossible, and thus fruitless.

Yes, but individual lawnmowers and cars are not released into the culture at large. Bob Jenkins' lawnmower has no cultural significance, whereas a popular song does. As soon as you put a song on the radio, or on MTV, or whatever, it becomes part of our culture. This is an entirely different situation than stealing a lawnmower. A lawnmower is a physical piece of property, and as such has a clear owner. A song, being a part of the culture, belongs to everyone to a certain extent. Artists should be able to claim some ownership rights, of course. But they can't own how a song affects individuals on an emotional or cultural level. They may try to claim that right, and the law may be behind them, but that doesn't make the proposition any less ridiculous.

I don't think anyone has a right to expect any such thing. They may wish for it, and try to stop such uses from occurring, but it seems to me that once you throw something out into the world, you inherently give up certain rights. You can't control how someone chooses to represent your work in their own home, for instance. You may shoot something in 4:3 and expect it to be watched that way, but you can't stop your audience from watching it "squished" on a 16:9 display, for example. Nor can you stop them from muting the sound and listening to whatever music they happen to think would be a good fit.

There are any number of things that can be done once you let a piece of work out of your hands that you have absolutely no control over, and yet you don't see any lawsuits based on this point. Say a projectionist does a really sh*tty job with a screening, which leads those in attendance to think that the film in question looks like crap. Word of this spreads, and a few people decide not to go see the movie in question. Are the filmmakers going to sue the projectionist for lost revenue? Are we all just going to sue each other every time some little thing doesn't go our way? Back to the lawnmower idea for a minute: note that the law doesn't try to restrict the way that I choose to use the lawnmower once I've purchased it. If I want to use it as a (admittedly very heavy) hat, that's my damned business (this all being beside the point, but if you're going to compare apples to oranges, then I might as well do so too). It's my business also if it decapitates me. Will the lawnmower company sue my mourning relatives for lost sales due to negative publicity for their brand?

These "lost revenue" arguments can be used to justify the most ludicrous situations you can possibly imagine. If I'm late for a meeting because of a traffic jam and miss out on a job because of it, can I sue the guy who had the wreck that caused the traffic jam? Can I sue my mommy for not loving me enough and making me so neurotic that I perform poorly at work and thus earn less money than I would have if only she had hugged me more (my mother loves me plenty--it's just a rhetorical question)? In both of these extremely ridiculous lawsuits, I can actually prove who was at fault (with police reports in the first case, with psychiatrists in the second). And yet record labels can't prove diddly about why their record sales are slumping. Maybe it's because they're releasing crappy product? Hmm, no, that's not possible.

As an artist myself, I'm all for making money, and I'm all for there being ways for artists to make sure that they are properly compensated for what they do. Unfortunately (or fortunately, depending on your outlook), once something becomes a cultural element, it ain't 100% yours anymore. Maybe 95% so, but not 100%. The law may currently say otherwise, but the law says all kinds of stupid things in all kinds of other areas, doesn't it? You can't always legislate reality.

Sorry for being long-winded. Steve, I respect where you're coming from, but it ain't the only way to think of all this.