Good question, and I'm not sure there's a cut-and-dried answer because of the evolution of country music, as is known in America, over the past century. Folk music is, and has always been, music produced by the common people for their own amusement and edification, and some of has a legacy that goes back hundreds, if not thousands, of years. Country music, as we now accept it, is a more glossy product that borders on rock-and-roll in some instances, and has bluegrass and like variations on the other end of its spectrum. Folk music is also global in its scope, whereas country music is mostly of American origin. Notable exceptions are Australian country music produced by world-class talents such as Slim Dusty and Paul McCloud. Much American country music has evolved from the folk music of other nations, especially Ireland and Scotland. Purists might say that major differences lie in the instrumentation and vocal styles. The modern scenario might revolve around the typically Nashville product which is almost exclusively country, and anything resembling a Nashville sound would be called "country" or "country & western" by anyone who cares enough to have an opinion. On the other hand, folk music is evolving from all over the world, and not just the US, but wonderful talents like Brandi Carlile (Washington state), Allison Sudol (L.A> transplant from Seattle), Tim Easton (central Ohio) are definitely contributing more to the folk genre than they are to the country genre. Loreena McKennitt is doing as much or more so, and she's from the Toronto area. The folk music from these diverse locations has as much in common as the conglomeration of Nashville sound has its uniqueness. On the bottom line, this question might have a simple answer, but you won't get one from me. I love both styles of music and that's probably because I simply enjoy playing and hearing them without attempting to get cerebral about pigeonholing them.