Diane, I assume you are actually attempting to be funny with your posts, and I will give you credit for that. No human being that has an ounce of dignity would stoop to the levels that you have appeared to in your posts.

For someone who seems so concerned about "morality", your ignorance in defending your position seems alarming. What does it say about a person when they refer to other peope as "pondscum" and "scumbags"? It says that person is lacking in common decency and lacks the ability to function in real world settings. I am sure your posts make you feel powerful, but I hope in real life you have a bit more compassion than you have shown to all of us. Don't forget, your words will live on long after you take your final dirt nap, and anyone who reads this thread won't need my book to form an opinion of you. I will chalk it up to your attempt at dry wit and not really a reflection of your real character.

I agree with Dick, and I would hope that this discussion can discuss collectors and how they handled their sources.   One item that has always struck me about these songs is that in their original setting, as family heirlooms so to speak, could you place a value on it? These were songs that were not used as a source of income for the singer (for the most part), what would constitute "fair" compensation? If I choose to share something that has no immediate financial value, would it be fair to expect something later?

Also, for songs that were shared in the folk tradition, is it fair for one source singer to take credit? Was Frank Proffit the only person singing Tom Dooley before he shared it with the Warners?    Perhaps someone who knows the story more intimately cold share their thoughts, I am really curious.