@@cstewart, you make a great point, the ultimate-guitar solution would be far from ideal, but it might be partially solved if we go back to the "approved" vs. just a community ratings system. In that case, people searching for the "best" version of a song can filter versions / variations of a song by those "blessed" by a community song approver. (more on this later) Similar to @@RobotMonster's first points, let's say we have a user like @altamont who have uploaded a lot of Bass tracks, and I wanted to add a Rhythm guitar part to some, I shouldn't have to ask him permission for each track and wait for response if, in this example, he may not care if someone added the guitar parts, or fixed a tone. Having the checkbox per song or account that says "go nuts" would save a lot of time for both parties, and help promote community involvement in the process. And we'd leave the default value to be off, so that people don't accidentally open-source their work. @@RobotMonster, that's a great example for exclusive ownership. My only counter to that, and it would not win an argument, would be that writing a piece of music may not mean you'd be the best user of the EOF tool etc. I do think that putting up your songs here, especially if we created a separate forum in the workshop for user-created songs, would be awesome, and a great self-promotional tool. Plus, wouldn't it be great to be able to ask the actual author - hey, is this a bend or a slide, or what delay pedal did you use, etc. Here's the situation, as I understand it: This community is completely dependent on having authors of CDLCs that keep updating and uploading their work, so in the end, we have to keep them happy. The community is also a relatively new one at that and, as we saw with Smithy's, is definitely fallible, therefore striking a balance between those that publish their work vs. those that consume / rate them is a tough task. The problem: 1) the work that authors do varies in quality / accuracy. No transcription is perfect, and neither should it be held to that standard. 2) whereas author's efforts in transcription is worthy of recognition, unless they wrote the songs, they cannot have a monopoly on the actual songs themselves. Right now, if I wanted to do another version of Back in Black with an improved solo, and the original author is unresponsive or didn't agree with my suggestion, I'd have to do Back in Black v2, and then we'd have the same problem as ultimate-guitar. Chances are that I'd have used most of the same notes and tones as the original author anyway to save effort, then there might be an argument of me passing off his or her work as my own, but my counter argument would be that I was emulating the song, which they don't own, not their work. A possible solution: A great goal for a community like this would be to make the barrier of entry to contribution so low that everyone would be able to add work without fear. If their work was good, it would be incorporated to the "approver-blessed" version. This is why I like the open-source model so much. Authors could start a piece and upload it, others could clone it and submit pull requests which could be approved by either the original author, a moderator, or the community at large. Otherwise, someone can fork a project, and turn the tones all into Reggae for a lark. Having this ability to Remix music would make it a very enlightening community. This solution would require a lot of re-work for the forum, but just having an "open-source" checkbox per song or author would make for a great step towards it. We could test this out in a sub-forum, and work out the kinks before rolling them out to the rest at large.