No host I've seen posting on this forum even the legal eagles say they are going to voluntarily eliminate anything from their library, until they are told they must.

I recently built a new laptop for a new gig that contains ONLY portions of my Sound Choice, Pop Hits Monthly and Chartbuster collection supplemented by legal downloads. I did it to reduce the number of duplicate tracks, to streamline maintenance, and reduce hardware requirements (go to smaller hard drives) for laptops. It will also reduce the size of the books for this location somewhat. All around, the decision will save me a significant amount of time and money.

The side effect of this is that I have eliminated many of the brands that we all know or suspect did not license properly. I feel somewhat good about that, but as was mentioned by TLR, I don't feel any obligation to remove the questionable tracks without a mandate.

You have eliminated duplicates Chris and probably kept SC since you are so sold on their product. Did you also eliminate one of a kind material that can only be had on similar questionable brands? Most hosts if they can only obtain a song on one label will keep that track until like many have said they are asked to eliminate it. Are you also eliminating material and actually losing songs from your library?

Are you also eliminating material and actually losing songs from your library?

"I recently built a new laptop for a new gig that contains ONLY portions of my Sound Choice, Pop Hits Monthly and Chartbuster collection supplemented by legal downloads.

I recently built a new laptop for a new gig that contains ONLY portions of my Sound Choice, Pop Hits Monthly and Chartbuster collection supplemented by legal downloads. I did it to reduce the number of duplicate tracks, to streamline maintenance, and reduce hardware requirements (go to smaller hard drives) for laptops. It will also reduce the size of the books for this location somewhat. All around, the decision will save me a significant amount of time and money.

The side effect of this is that I have eliminated many of the brands that we all know or suspect did not license properly. I feel somewhat good about that, but as was mentioned by TLR, I don't feel any obligation to remove the questionable tracks without a mandate.

There are a great many karaoke hosts out there that don't read karaoke forums and are completely oblivious to licensing issues. They saw discs they wanted, bought them, end of story. There is no way for them to know if the discs are "legal" or not. There is no one regulating them. There is no easy way to figure out what is valid or not. For them, ignorance is bliss and I often wish I were in the same position as them.

I thought I read somewhere in the past that if you are certified legal by SC and you rip a disc to a HD that you had to rip the whole disc and not only certain songs.

So if you are deleting dupes and they happen to be SC's, are you violating the Certified KJ agreement?

I may be wrong and Jim would know the correct answer, so waiting for it.

I would be curious about how you picked and chose "questionable brands "...

I did it to reduce the number of duplicate tracks, to streamline maintenance, and reduce hardware requirements (go to smaller hard drives) for laptops.

The side effect of this is that I have eliminated many of the brands that we all know or suspect did not license properly. I feel somewhat good about that, but as was mentioned by TLR, I don't feel any obligation to remove the questionable tracks without a mandate.

Lon, your statement regarding half a disc on one system, and half on another makes no sense. Not knocking you, but rather anyone who told you that.

I believe it was set in precedent in Dan Dan the Taxman's case where while he was found compliant to the 1:1, he was also forced by the judge to remove all SC from his library for failure to follow SC's requirement to audit his system.

a host buying the SC product and 1:1 compliant and still cant use his purchased material, because he didn't say mother may I to SC. Then hosts wonder why I have boycotted SC, really?

It's basically this, say you are running two shows on the same night, same time! You cannot have that 1 disc in both places at once - you would need two discs. Same principle applies.

The only way they can license their current unsold inventory is to use this legal process in order to generate sales.

I just find it surprising that their reputation has not been more damaged, than it already has.

Which raises the question.....why do you continue to make feeble attempts to tarnish their reputation when it is evident that people just don't care what you have to say about SC?

Mr. Marog and Lon are both referencing SC, not the law, unless either of you can name a judge or legal document only SC's PREFERENCES are being referenced.

SC permits media-shifting under its rules as long as it doesn't deprive SC of sales it would otherwise have obtained. Media-shifting is not supposed to allow a KJ to buy less music, just to put that music into a more convenient format.

If this premise is a point of rule, which is not necessarily a point of law, then couldn't there be an allocation for product that can no longer be purchased, which would NOT deprive anyone of sales?