Roksana, my answers to your 4 questions below:

1. I see the internet as an ideal medium for distributing folk music, both traditional and original. It does also open new doors to exploitation, but in my opinion the benefits outweight the negatives

2. No, my music has not been "stolen" - I am conscious that if I put up a song for download over the internet, it will find its way into MP3 players and even be burned onto CD, and I am OK with that (otherwise I wouldn't have put it up in the first place). I do know of one case involving the (now deceased) songwriter Ron Shearman, Enya and the song "Sailing". My understanding of how that case went in court is that Ron lost it despite having dozens of witnesses ready to swear to his having written his song first. The cynical view is that he should have spent more on lawyers...

3. No, I have not heard of the Creative Commons licence - I would appreciate any information on this.

4. I disagree vehemently - folk artists are every bit like "commercial artists" in that many of them also try to make a living out of their profession. In the cases of writers of original songs especially (being one myself), I would fight to my last breath anyone who tries to usurp my copyright. There is another reason why this separation of original works into "folk" and "commercial" is nonsensical: With many people subscribing to very wide definitions of what is "folk", you find many works spanning both folk and other genres. Finally, I find even the separation into "folk" and "commercial" works deeply offensive, as it implies that "folk" works, attracting lower revenue than others, are somehow more easily dismissible and able to be excluded from commercial rules and rights; it is the thin end of the wedge and would only lead to legalised exploitation for the benefit of the "big boys" of the music business - it's like saying "they don't make much money, so they won't miss it"! Over my dead body.