4. Some people believe that traditional music or folk music should not be protected under "private law" as the objectives of a folk artist is somehow different to "commercial artists", and that it should therefore be protected under laws that can protect its roots and heritage. To what extent do you agree or disagree with this statement?

I wrote:
Disagree completely, and I'm insulted that it would even occur to somebody to exploit the tradition in such a way. Apart from being blatantly unfair to those of us who choose to write/compose/perform in the folk style, it's much too ambiguous. By that logic, any song with any political or sociological commentary would be fair game, regardless of stylistic genre. I could see that clearing the way for all sorts of intellectual and artistic theft--garage rock, rap, blues, roots country, etc. all have arguably folk (as in, the started low on the musical food chain) roots. Whether you agree with me or not in the artistic sense, you have to admit that there will be music-industry lawyers ready to pounce on that one.

Sorry, that was probably unduly pessimistic, but we all know that "separate does not mean equal" and it sounds like a loophole-in-the-making.

Either that, or I cold see big-name artists using pieces of traditional music and then acquiring a stranglehold on all the related songs, variants, arrangements, and anything with a similar title, in an effort to squeeze out competition.