Jim, so we're happy to deviate from 1954 which does specify 'oral' to allow modern forms of transmission, yes?

So the only issue we're left with then if I'm understanding correctly, is ownership. Am I over simplifying what you've said by saying that a new song can become 'folk' if we don't know who wrote it and other people sing it?

Now to my way of thinking, our modern songwriters, whilst living in a very different society, are really no different to songwriters of 300 years ago. The only difference is that means of transmission.

When our songwriter of 300 years ago wrote their song, they were not writing 'folk' music, because the term had not been coined, but merely writing a song, which brings me back to my belief that 'folk music' is a term we have created to identify or catagorise that 'style' of song. Therefore, I come back to my belief that if a new song is of that 'style', respects and acknowledges the tradition upon which it is based, then there is no issue with calling it a 'folk' song, regardles of knowing who wrote it.

John