Marathon RMS High End Active Speakers!

Marathon® RMS, The New High End Active Line of Speakers from Marathon® so far.

The New Marathon® RMS features lean, mean powerful sound with weather resistant molded polypropylene enclosure. The RMS-550 packs with incredible 550 watts and 450 watts for RMS-450 that will surely rock the house. These powered speaker system works great with mixing, amplification and monitoring for electronic and electro-acoustic instruments can be used for live sound reinforcement, music playback in entertainment, and other outdoor venues. Provides unwavering performance using advanced program techniques which delivers efficient lower distortion and low frequency extension. Portable design with easy to carry handles and attaching brackets with 5 mounting points from the top, side and bottom for permanent suspension.

Compact and Active RMS Subwoofers comes with proprietary amplifier capabilities. Phenomenal 800 watts of amplifier power with built-in power limit protection circuit to complement the high efficient chamber design. Precised woofer technology and ultra-high chamber design that gives faster and tighter bass response.

Superior features such as adjustable 80 to 200Hz low pass filter, Off/80Hz/125Hz high pass filter, optional balanced and unbalanced signal input and phase reverted switch. Marathon® RMS Series, Moving forward and leading the powered speakers technology.

http://www.marathonpro.com

X-LaserTM Partners With LaserWorld, Switzerland

X-Laser is proud to announce a new partnership with LaserWorld of Switzerland to
introduce two new lines of Class IIIB and IV laser products to the North American
market. Having been debuted at LDI 2009 in Orlando, FL, the new NOCTURNE LASER
lines use LaserWorld’s existing IEC compliant chassis and optical sub-assembly
designs specifically modified for the United States market to achieve a fully FDA
compliant laser product with finish manufacturing, QC/FDA certifications, testing and
service to be performed at X-Laser’s facility in Laurel, Maryland.

Drawing upon decades of optical and electromechanical innovations, the new
NOCTURNE lasers will surely be ranked among the world’s most user friendly and
safest high powered laser systems. With planned system powers ranging the full
spectrum from 50 milliwatts up to an unbelievable 40 watts, supra-compliant safety
features will combine with state of the art electro-optical systems to produce the finest,
affordable, safest, high powered laser projectors the world has ever seen.

Dan Goldsmith, President of X-laser USA, said “LaserWorld is known throughout
Europe for excellence in laser system integration and we are thrilled to bring our
manufacturing and US compliance expertise to the table to make such an exciting new
series of products. Over the past few years the X-Laser brand has grown tremendously
as designers, installers and mobile entertainers alike have embraced our passion for
quality and service. Very soon the market will see how we are continuing that tradition
into the higher powered laser class and we are looking forward to releasing a series of
case studies for the high profile installs already performed with X-Laser projectors and
Nocturne projectors planned for early 2010.”

The first dozen models of Nocturne Laser’s Elite and Ultimate series were introduced at
LDI Orlando in November and will begin shipping almost immediately. A current market
analysis places the pricing of the new projectors at up to 50% lower (depending on the
model) than current US market rates for FDA certified projectors.

Looking forward, a retrofit program is on the drawing board for bringing EU LaserWorld
models already in the United States into full compliance with 21CFR 1040 and other
relevant regulations thus making them eligible for US licensing.

For more information, please contact X-Laser’s sales and marketing manager Joe
Goldsmith at joe@x-laser.com.

Television Broadcasters File Class-Action Lawsuit Against SESAC

A group of television station owners has filed a class-action antitrust lawsuit against SESAC and its affiliated composers and music publishers.  SESAC is a for-profit company that licenses public performance rights to copyrighted music compositions.  The complaint (“Complaint”) filed in a United States District Court in New York alleges that SESAC has engaged in anti-competitive behavior in violation of federal antitrust laws. 

The Complaint asks the court “to restrain and prevent SESAC from perpetuating the unlawful exercise of the monopoly power SESAC has amassed, unilaterally and collectively in conspiracy with and among SESAC [copyright holders], . .  . over the licensing to Plaintiffs and other Class Members of the music performance rights they need to broadcast their scheduled programming.”  In layman’s terms, the television broadcasters have asked the court to force SESAC to stop its anti-competitive conduct with respect to licensing SESAC public performance rights that are embedded in network and syndicated television programming.  The Complaint also seeks treble money damages from SESAC for its alleged violations. 

As mentioned above, the lawsuit was filed as a class action, which means that the named plaintiffs are proceeding on behalf of themselves and other members of a particular class—the class in this case is identified generally as local commercial television broadcasters.  If the judge certifies that the case should proceed as a class action, other television broadcasters will be given an opportunity to participate as members of the class and, thus, to be bound by the outcome of the case.  For example, if the court awards monetary damages to the plaintiffs, then participants in the class should also be entitled to some portion of that award.  As of November 18, 2009, the judge has not yet certified the class.  (Assuming the court certifies the class, procedures to notify local commercial television broadcasters and the methods by which class members may choose to or decline to participate in the lawsuit will be ordered by the court.) 

Three entities offer music performance rights licenses for virtually all music broadcast by local television stations—ASCAP, BMI, and SESAC.  Local stations must acquire licenses from each of these organizations because their repertories are exclusive of one another.  For decades, ASCAP and BMI have been operating under consent decrees following the U.S. Department of Justice’s investigation into alleged antitrust violations by those two entities (“Consent Decrees”).  SESAC is not a party to the Consent Decrees and not bound by their terms.  According to the Complaint, “SESAC flaunts its freedom from the competitive safeguards afforded by the Consent Decrees and has clearly  demonstrated its intention to take full advantage of its monopoly power by engaging in many of the very same practices that ASCAP and BMI were barred from continuing . . . .” 

One of two key factual allegations made in the Complaint is that SESAC has taken anti-competitive actions that are “exactly the type of conduct” prohibited by the ASCAP and BMI Consent Decrees and cause the same anti-competitive effects against which the Consent Decrees were designed to protect.  Specifically, the lawsuit claims that SESAC has: 

• Refused to offer broadcasters an economically viable alternative to its all-or-nothing blanket license and is not required to do so.
• Purported to offer a per program license alternative to its blanket license, but the terms are “so egregious” that the offer is meaningless.
• Enhanced the “competition-foreclosing power” of its blanket license by serving as the exclusive licensing agent for its rights holders for many compositions in its repertory.
• Threatened to withhold access to its entire repertory as a means to extract “supracompetitive” fees from broadcasters.
• Strategically raided ASCAP and BMI to entice composers whose compositions either are embedded in established syndicated and unlicensed network programming, are widely incorporated in broadcasters’ locally produced programs, or are included in enough commercials that it would be essentially impossible for broadcasters to avoid the compositions.
• Unfairly refused to disclose accurately the full contents of its repertory, making it impossible to avoid using SESAC music. 
• Coordinated with its affiliated rights holders an anticompetitive scheme to aggregate compositions from hundreds of different sources into a single repertory.

The Complaint also alleges that SESAC’s scheme to restrain trade and eliminate price competition has had “actual injurious effects” on television broadcasters.  For example, the lawsuit points out that from 2005 to 2007 SESAC offered stations a per program license fee.  The terms of the license for that period were set by an independent panel of arbitrators following a lengthy arbitration proceeding.  According to the Complaint, more than 250 local stations chose to operate under this lower cost, per program structure rather than the blanket license structure.  However, following the expiration of the 2005-2007 license period, SESAC changed the terms of the per program license.  Under the 2005-2007 agreement, only five percent of certain kinds of third-party programming was deemed to contain SESAC music (on which royalties were due); after the 2005-2007 agreement expired, SESAC deemed that 50 percent of such programming would be deemed to contain SESAC music—greatly increasing the fees due from broadcasters to SESAC.

* * * * *

Time to take the Limbo To A New High

It’s time to take the limbo to a new High (or low as you would think with limbo contests), with the Limbo To Go. Most DJs carry around a dowel rod or one of those collapsable limbo sticks or inflatable ones but this is on a totally different level. This is a quick assembling heavy duty metal unit that comes in a small bag and is perfect for the truly mobile DJ. The stands on the side that hold the limbo stick are like tent poles in that they fold up but they stay together in one unit (4 pieces adjoined that snap together), snap in place and then go into their base. The whole unit goes together in less than a minute, or as demonstrated on their online video at limbotogo.com under 45 seconds. In development also is the next generation of Limbo To Go, their Glow unit with LED lighting powered by batteries so you can take it even further.

Limbo To Go is making it’s industry debut at MBLVX this looks like a fantastic unit, a review piece is on the way to the Mobile Beat Headquarters right now. Check it out at the MBLVX nighttime events or on the exhibit floor. If this was available back in 2007 when Chubby Checker graced our conference stage doing the Limbo Rock, we would have been so set!

If you want to check it out before the show, go to LimboToGo.Com

A Newsletter for your DJ Service

Name recognition is key.

For $12.00 a month, Newsletters Monthly will send you a Newsletter via email for you to send to everyone in your database. These are not newsletter templates; they are Actual Newsletters Complete With Content. You can customize the newsletter if you choose. The purpose ~ to stay in touch.

You spend money, time and energy to get that bride to hire you for her wedding, to land that corporate event, to convince someone to hire you over the next DJ. What are you doing to keep them as clients? They loved you, you were great, but time passes, will they remember you or know that you’re still in business?

The newsletter is simply a tool that helps you stay in contact with your clients. Newsletters build strong, lasting relationships. Your clients don’t need to read the newsletters; they just need to see YOUR name once a month in order for your company to stay in the forefront of their minds. It’s proven that it costs five times more to create new business over repeat business and referrals from past clients.
Old clients become repeat clients, which leads to many new clients.

Sign Up Now www.newslettersmonthly.com and look for them at MBLVX!

DJ Kool – for MBLVX

An mp3 of the Interview is available lower in this text and via ITunes.  Full text is below and selected portions are published in Mobile Beat Magazine – to subscribe go to https://members.mobilebeat.com.

Read more

Sugar Hill Gang – For MBLVX

An mp3 of the Interview is available lower in this text and via ITunes.  Full text is below and selected portions are published in Mobile Beat Magazine – to subscribe go to https://members.mobilebeat.com.

Read more

Coolio – For MBLVX

An mp3 of the Interview is available lower in this text and via ITunes.  Full text is below and selected portions are published in Mobile Beat Magazine – to subscribe go to https://members.mobilebeat.com.

Read more

Whoomp! (There It Is): The Importance of Contract Drafting

People often assume lawyers just use “form books” for contracts. I’m sometimes asked questions like: Don’t you just have a form for that? Can’t you just send me the standard form agreement? Can you quickly look over this agreement I did myself on the internet?

The fact is that virtually every contract involves unique circumstances. In the case of copyright transfers and licensing, contractual language can be critical. Under the Copyright Act, a written and signed document is required to transfer ownership of a copyright or to transfer exclusive rights to a copyright.

A recent case from the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals demonstrates the pitfalls of an ambiguously drafted copyright transfer.

In that case, Alvert Music, a publishing company, claimed ownership of the composition copyright to various songs, including “Whoomp! (There It Is).”

Alvert sued DM Records, claiming DM Records had infringed Alvert’s copyright. DM Records claimed that Alvert couldn’t sue because Alvert had transferred the copyrights to a third party, Bridgeport Music, and thus, Alvert didn’t own the copyrights.

In 2004, Avert had executed a “Short Form Copyright Assignment” covering the compositions at issue which stated:

In consideration of the sum of One Dollar ($1.00) and other good, valuable, and adequate consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is acknowledged, the undersigned does hereby sell, assign, transfer, and set over to Bridgeport Music, Inc., its respective successors and assigns, fifty percent (50%) of his interest now owned or subsequently procured in the universe-wide copyright in and to the following musical composition(s) set forth in Exhibit A attached hereto, and all of the universe-wide right, title, and interest of the undersigned, vested or contingent, therein and thereto, including all claims for infringement of the copyrights whether now or hereafter existing, for the maximum terms of copyright, including any extensions and/or renewals thereto, throughout the universe.

DM Records argued that Alvert no longer owned the copyright because of the language stating that Alvert had transferred to Bridgeport “all of the universe-wide right, title, and interest of the undersigned, vested or contingent, therein and thereto, including all claims for infringement of the copyrights whether now or hereafter existing, for the maximum terms of copyright.” The lower court agreed and threw out Alvert’s case.

However, Alvert appealed and argued that it still owned 50 percent of the copyright because of the language stating that Alvert transferred to Bridgeport “fifty percent (50%) of his interest now owned or subsequently procured in the universe-wide copyright in and to the . . . musical composition.” The Court of Appeals agreed with Alvert and reinstated Alvert’s case.

While the two clauses in the assignment contract seemingly conflicted with each other, the Court of Appeals reasoned that the proper reading of the two clauses is that clause cited by DM Records operates as a clarification of the 50% interest assigned in the clause cited by Alvert.

While the decision of the Court of Appeals doesn’t indicate whether the assignment language was from a form book or specifically drafted for Alvert’s particular circumstances, the fact is that the assignment language resulted in litigation that was reviewed by two courts and undoubtedly cost the parties significant time and money.

Just imagine the multiple ways the assignment language could have been made clearer and the whole mess could have been avoided.

The bottom line is that you should always be careful before preparing and entering into any legal document. Contractual language may seem insignificant at the time, but as this case demonstrates, even the simplest language can become very significant when a dispute arises.

Beware of taking shortcuts, as some shortcuts can result in significant consequences, including significant expenses. Before you sign, please be sure to have your legal counsel review any important legal document.

* * * * *

Big Game Party to precede MBLVX!

No, we’re not talking about  elephants, antelope, or elk, but on Sunday,
February 7, 2010, join the ADJA,NLFX and DigiGames starting at 2:30 PM for
the final NFL game of the year. Concessions available and plenty of
surprises.

Pre-Registration is $10 and you can sign up at https://members.mobilebeat.com thru January
31. Join old friends and make new ones! See you there!

Next Page »