Chris:

With all your new found SC discs I'm guessing you went over 2% and will be looking for a new audit soon huh?

Chris

You actually started a new thread for this using my name?

Nope. Once I get all of the discs ripped down, I will submit them via email to Sound Choice. No audit necessary.

-Chris

With the way that Sound Choice has handled their side of things, and the paranoia that some feel over getting sued, I believe people are overthinking things.

It is really simple - Take pictures of the discs, provide a list of disc numbers, send it in email. No receipt required.

I will probably rip in batches and send in pics of each batch over time since it will take me a couple of months to integrate into my library anyway.

-Chris

But couldn't you just be photographing someone else's discs? This is what I kept hearing everyone say about Rodney when he was sued and showed a picture of his discs.

My point isn't that this is what you're doing. If the RULES of the audit agreement require that you re-audit when you go over the 2% tolerance, I am wondering why are you exempt?

My understanding of the certification and to remain compliant is to due what Chris is saying. Once the KJ has gone through the initial audit in order to maintain there 1:1 compliance is to provide photos and track info to SC.

I see issues with this where one could pull a bait and switch and I can only assume that SC doesn't feel a KJ who has proven 1:1 by doing the initial audit that they would do that.

Personally I think if this is good enough for ongoing compliance it should be good enough for initial certification. If I provide contact info, business name, address, website, facebook etc... and go on record saying I have said disks/tracks that should be good enough if SC feels its good enough for ongoing compliance. Many KJ's started out doing the right thing and then started pirating music later.

This is correct as far as it goes. There is no requirement that the KJ re-audit after adding 2%. Considering the source of the comment that you were responding to, I think we can mark that down as "disinformation."



There is one important piece that is missing. A KJ is always subject to re-audit at SC's request. The KJ can decline the re-audit, of course, but the certification would be pulled at that point. So it's mostly good enough for ongoing compliance, but after an initial audit and with the ability to re-audit if necessary.

And does SC do this Audit FREE of charge or do they request payment for each time they want to do a re-audit?

Ordinarily it would be a free audit if SC requested it. If the KJ requests it--such as, if the KJ wanted to be re-certified for some reason--then there would ordinarily be a charge.

Why would a KJ need or want to be re-certified?