Ah, well here again we have a the old problem of two varying definitions of the word 'folk.'

If you exclude O'Carolan and all that goes with him, which is fair enough within your terms Jim, then I go along with everything you say (until the last sentence, see below).

But I should explain that when I use the f word I'm using the modern 'common' meaning of the term, rather than the 54 definition - which would certainly include Carolan. And I think we can take it that many of the people who have contributed above are doing so too.

For me the word means anything you might hear at a folk club or folk festival, or which a majority of the population might allow as folk, because that's the democratic (if technically wrong) definition - but let's not have that debate again!

However, I would like gently to remind everyone for the umpteenth time (not because I'll ever change your mind, Jim, but because there is a lot of misunderstanding over this which we do have a duty to try to clarify whenever we can) that you can effectively only copyright your own rendition of a traditional work, so only you get paid on your own performances, and on your own performances only. No-one else need ever pay you a cent unless they choose to tell PRS that they are doing your 'tweak' and no other. This takes nothing from the public ownership of the tradition, but may possibly enhance it if it brings that material to new ears.

Happy Thursday from Leeds

Tom