Once again the 'what is folksong' argument raises its lovely head, which is only right and proper when discussing the subject of - well, folksong.
As usual, much of the argument is based on two false premises:
(a) that there is no existing definition of the term, and,
(b) that any perception of what that definition is revolves around personal likes and dislikes.
As Richard Bridge has lucidly pointed out, a perfectly workable, clearly worded, widely accepted definition has existed for over half a century and any discussion on the subject has to start with that – either by accepting it or dismantling it with argument. That what you are singing falls under the description of folksongs depends on whether you can put a tick in enough of the relevant boxes; if you can, it is, if you can't, it isn't – simple as that.
The accepted definition is to be found in various publications; in its concise form in A L Lloyd's 'Folk Song In England' and in an extremely detailed 16 page, double-column one in Funk and Wagnall's 'Standard Dictionary of Folklore. This is adequately backed up by hundreds of published song collections, and countless reference and research works, many bearing the term 'folk song' on the spine. Those who have any problems with part or all of the existing definition are perfectly welcome to question any or all of it, and even replace it with their own suggestions. I do not believe anybody is entitled to reject or ignore it out-of-hand.
The old usual – "I'm not great with definitions" is illogical, dishonest and not a little cowardly. We put labels on things so we know what tins to open, otherwise we hand the choice of what we eat, drink, read, wear, listen to, think – to others, many of whom have a vested interest in persuading us that what they are selling is exactly what we are looking for.
So far, nobody has put forward the asinine (no pun intended) 'talking horse' statement mentioned by Richard Bridge, but I'm sure it's lurking out there somewhere, as is the equally facile Humpty Dumptyish, "words mean what I want them to mean" argument.
Why is a definition important?
i. Many of us find arguments such as this one enjoyable, stimulating and educational, but in order to get the most out of them it is necessary to define our terms so we know we are speaking the same language. Throw away the definitions and you throw away communication, therefore forums such as Mudcat become meaningless and unworkable.   
ii. Everybody needs to know that what they are subscribing to conforms, more or less to what it says on the tin.
Our local newspaper recently carried an advert for a folk song club over the other side of the county. The fact that there are so few such events around here tempts me to jump in the car and drive the twenty-odd miles in the (at present) pissing rain and howling gales to attend. On the other hand, the chance that when I get there I will, more likely than not, find something which bears no relation whatever to what I understand as folksong, makes me more inclined to stay at home and watch Taggart.
Throughout the eighties and nineties we watched the gradual haemorrhaging of folk club audiences, when me and thousands like me voted with our feet and walked away from the folk scene exactly for this reason. We really were not prepared to sit through yet another evening at a folk club and not hear a folk song.
iii. More immediately; the thread on 'the PRS Gestapo' has brought into sharp focus the current activities of this august body, who are apparently claiming payment from folk clubs "on the off-chance that copyrighted songs 'might' be sung during the course of the evening". Folksongs proper are in the public domain, singer/songwriter compositions are not; therefore, those of who prefer what we listen to; to be the real thing will run the risk of losing our venues in the interests of those who are, quite reasonably, trying to earn a few sheckles out of their compositions.
These are only a few of the problems thrown up by the present situation; there are plenty more, proving, to my mind at least, that a great deal of damage has already been done to our appreciation and understanding enjoyment and passing on of folk music in the name of "let's not bother our tiny heads with understanding this music.
If anybody has an alternative working definition of what they mean by folksong for us to consider, I would be pleased to hear it. On the other hand, if it's just a case of using the term as a cultural comfort blanket, as has been suggested, perhaps it's time that those concerned face up to the fact that what they are doing is not, never has been and never will be folksong.
If they wish to keep the term in their CV as a job description, perhaps they might add "wannabe" in front of it.
Jim Carroll