I do agree with your sentiments Dick, though I'd not put them so strongly, because I also understand where Jim's coming from too. We're all passionate about folk music, and we can all easily fall into a defensive position when we feel our favourite corner is coming under threat.

The truth is that copyright legislation, and the system for the distribution of royalties thereon, was really developed for other genres of music, and the folk catalogue, with its much higher-than-average use of publily-owned material, has wound up being a bit of a compromise as a result - but in my view it's a pretty good one.

Basically there has to be a workable system, which is fair and reasonably efficient, and you can't start exempting any genre of music. Don't forget that ALL compostions fall out of copyright 70 years after the composer's death - not just folk songs.

People approach this compromise from many directions; songwriter, arranger, collector, traditional singer, folklorist, historian, fan, singer looking for covers, consumer, licencee, (err, blogger?) etc. and to be honest few are 100% happy with what we find - specially if we're not fully conversant with the detail, which few are (including me).

I've said this before, but I was initially very unhappy with the concept of any copyright being attached to any traditional material whatsoever (as it is, by the registration of arrangements, the writing of new words to old tunes, the rewriting of tunes etc) - because it did indeed seem like a kind of theft. But that's actually not what happens.

Again - a reminder that this is only my understanding. I'm not an expert.

But I believe the way it works is that licencees pay a sum based on the amount of music played in their venue, or on their radio station, or whatever. All music, regardless of ownership, counts in this calcualation, so revenue is being generated on everything that's played. It's not practical to pre-empt the calcuation, so a blanket system is reasonable.

This money all goes into a pot, and the PRS (etc.) have the job of distributing that money to the copyright holders.

Now with original works in copyright, that's easy. They just send the fee to the writers - splitting the money between composer and author, and the arranger too if an arrangement is registered. Non-registered, unarranged out-of-copyright material is easy too. The money stays in the pot, and is used to help fund festivals and lots of other things (something people are not as aware of as they might be). So that's trad that's not entered the system yet.

The Trad Arr stuff is more complex. Take a well-known song like The Newry Highwayman - and all its many other titles. There are hundreds of registered versions of this song (including one of mine). If someone has performed this who has NOT registered an arrangement, and they have also not credited one of the registered arrangement, (by putting trad arr Tom Bliss, for example, on the sheet), then the money stays in the pot as above. If they do credit an arrangement, mine for example, then money comes to me - all of it (as much as for an original song, because that's the fee for that 'slot'), but only for that individual performance. If they credit someone else, then that person gets the money.

Obviously when it's me doing the song I credit myself, and the money rolls in (it's only pence, actually).

The reason I get all of the money is that there's no-one else with whom to split the fee. So 'Trad Arr Bliss' (as long as it's my actual arrangement being counted) is just as lucrative as 'Bliss.' (We were reminded of this re The White Hare issue last year).

Now. Where the difference comes in, as Dick has mentioned, is that when my song is covered by someone else, I get a writer's royality on their performances and recordings. But wqhen Newry Highwayman is done by someone else, (assuming they don't do my exact arrangement - and the lawyers could have a field day in this area because the rules are really trixy here) I don't.

So there IS, potentially, a huge difference in income between original works and trad ars - as long as people are covering your songs, and those covers are getting played out, and so attracting royalties. (Mine aren't, much, so I don't :-( !).

Now. Back to Jim's idea.

One way to source revenue for trad catalogues would be to ask PRS to treat Mr Trad as a living writer. Royalties would be split between Mr Trad and the arranger - or, as often happens, Mr Trad as composer, and someone else as author (lots of us borrow trad tunes for new songs).

Mr Trad's money could then go to another pot, to be used as discussed.

But it would be very difficult to police - as the tradition is an evolving thing, and I fear we'd be trying to ring-fence a natural process - and that grey area where streams leap down and lawyers feed would suddenly get LOT bigger!

It certainly needs more thought.

Tom