Ultimate Guitar

<font color="darkblue">Hmmm.  I've been trying to think of a tactful way of asking about Ultimate-Guitar for a while but without much luck.  Seeing I'm not the only one questioning their actions makes it a little easier.  (Thanks, the brodie) 

I haven't seen any tabs that I thought were necessarily wrong - I would say "carelessly" done, perhaps.  The person does appear to be knowledgeable, but isn't putting much effort into the work.  Perhaps a Cmaj is used where a C#m7 is correct - that's just a loose example, whoever it is, they know more than I do.  Hee.

But I am bothered by the duplicate pages that I've seen lately.  One will credit an individual, sometimes dated several years earlier than the duplicate - a page containing nearly identical work that bears only the Ultimate-Guitar name and a copyright date - no mention is made as to the original author/contributor of the page.  The statement, <i>"This file is the author's own work and represents their interpretation | | of the song. You may only use this file for private study, scholarship, | | or research."</i>, is there but the only identification is "Ultimate-Guitar.com" along with a copyright date.  They don't claim authorship, but they don't credit it, either.  (My most recent find is Dylan's "Watching the River Flow", apparently contributed by "From: Harlan L Thompson <<a href="mailto:harlant&#64;hawaii.edu" target="_blank">harlant&#64;hawaii.edu</a>> / Date:   Wed, 29 Nov 1995 14:51:35 -1000".  I found all three formats, 2 of each)

So.  I'm wondering if this person has taken the opportunity to exploit the current "music sharing" mess, to enhance their business/personal interests.  While I suppose it is legal enough, part of me resents the profiteering nature of what I'm seeing.  (IF what I think I'm seeing is in fact the case.) It did cross my mind that perhaps the actual authors of the work have been compensated, rather than this being a evidence of an opportunist and a loophole in copyright law.  I don't know and Ultimate-Guitar hasn't responded to my questions.  It's also possible that by paying to for copyright to these works, they're actually donating to the community at large - as long as someone has a copyright, it can be made available to others without the threat of legal action.

I'm not asking that Chordie do anything one way or another.  (Chordie has already done more than enough for me - thanks for many hours of music, education and fun)  It's just that I've always appreciated and admired the many people who generously share of their talents, and ask little or nothing in return.  Basically this is just a personal thing for me.  But it's a pretty strong opinion to form, so I want to be sure.  If anyone has any comments, explanation, or otherwise, I'd appreciate hearing them.

One more - does anyone know of an organization or group working for a more sensible legal stance in this situation?

Thanks,

Eva</font>

well, if most of the chords are from there that are shown in here then that is because people have directed chordie to it. They have added songs to chride from that site.
Songs do not get put directly onto chordie, instead it is used as a search engine.
you do not say why you do not like ultimate nor do I really care to be honest, all I am bothered about is songs on chordie and if they come from ultimate then so be it.
If you find they are wrong on chordie there is the option to correct it yourself so we can all see how you think a song should be, be it right or wrong. at the end of the day yo ucan do what you like, try the chords shown or amend them using the option at the bottom of every song. and if you still think someones version is wrong you can go to source and see what the original page from the original aite was like.

So if there was no Ultimate site then if what you say is true, then there would not be much on choride either

cheers for the input though

Ken

I've printed some tabs from Ultimate-Guitar and never found anything wrong with them. Quite a few repeats though.