Jim says

"If a previously unknown song turns up in the tradition, falls into the hands of a musician or singer who then makes minor adjustments to it so it still remains recognisable as the one collected, does the source have no rights to the song - legally or morally - if not, why not?"

The source still has exactly the same rights to the song as he did before it fell into the musician's hands. Namely total rights - the same as everyone else has to that song and to to every other work in publc ownership. That is; both legal and moral rights, to perform and record the song, and, if he so chooses, to register and collect on his own unique version - i.e. his own interpretation of a version that he learned from his own source.

The musician who 'makes the minor adjustment' will also only be able to collect on HIS own version - which even in the case of an unaccompanied song, where neither tune nor words have been changed, can be defined merely by subtle differences in singing style.

The song itself will remain in public ownership regardless. No theft takes place. No rights are lost. No harm is done.

The song never belonged to the source in the first place. Is that where you're coming from on this? Granted, some communities have conventions about singers 'owning' and 'giving' songs to each other, but that never had any legal weight - and anyway it only ever worked within a small community. Just down the road some other people were busy 'owning' and 'giving' the same song.

The only person who ever owns a song is the writer (or writers) - who I presume in this case have been long long dead.

"If I have the thrust of this threas right, the singer/songwrters out there are prepared to throw traditional music to the PRS jackals in order to protect their own work."

That is quite the most extraordinary thing I've ever read on Mudcat, Jim. No-one is throwing traditional music to the PRS. The PRS don't own it any more than you or I. They just collect and distribute royalties according to copyright law.

There is a legal difference between a song (known as a 'work') comprising words and tune, and the arrangement of a song; namely the insubstantial changes to words or tune, arrangements, accompaniment, harmonies, decoration etc which most performers effect to the work either deliberately or by natural evolution, which still leave the song recognisably the same.

I don't know how many arrangements PRS have registered of John Barleycorn, for example, but I bet it's hundreds. The point is it could be millions - there is no upper limit. And each of those million arrangers will only collect on their own performances of their own arrangements of that song.

Personally i wouldn't mind if the arrangement arrangement was scrapped. But as long as the rule stands, and as long as I'm as strapped for dosh, I'll take my few shekels thankyou - and it has absolutely nothing to do with wanting to protect my work anyway.

I don't actually want to protect my work - I want people to sing my songs and if there was no royalty system I'd be happy for them to fly on the breeze. But if the law says people must pay to use them, and someone's out there collecting money on my behalf, I'll have that too - though 90% of my royalties on my own song are from my own performances of them.

I'm not a bad person and I"m not doing anything wrong :-)

Tom