Tessa, I agree that we need to be careful with language. I might have used the term "owner" in the past but it really is inappropriate, for the reasons which you gave. I think the "problem" of the "stealing" of data is moot. I do not have a tree on Ancestry because I was (>10 years ago) fed up with every man and his dog copying it into bonkers trees with no sourced connection to any of my ancestors. This is a problem with BURTON, and a cohort of USA BURTON researchers who are sure we are all descended from some Norman Knight. We Aren't. I have now come to the conclusion that the internet is so full of rubbish of a genealogical and other nature, that I really should put all my data (including QUESTED) in the public domain as at least it will be as correct as I can make it. But this has to wait until I can get the data as correct as I can.... But there is another point, I think. There is a good deal of free data on the 'net, but much has been monetarised behind paywalls. GOONS does need to consider this aspect as the subs are quite small and if we end up as a repository of valuable data, then perhaps we should be extracting a bit of dosh for Tom, Dick and Harry to get access? Penelope Burton GOONS 4896

Penelope Burton wrote: >>There is a good deal of free data on the 'net, but much has been monetarised behind paywalls. GOONS does need to consider this aspect as the subs are quite small and if we end up as a repository of valuable data, then perhaps we should be extracting a bit of dosh for Tom, Dick and Harry to get access?<< The problem here is that we are a charity and those behind paywalls are commercial companies.... Polly