Hi Frances, thanks for your comments.

Firstly there was never any question that I had used the Ancestry.com site and not paid fees. In fact I paid a quarterly fee and then prior to the next quarterly renewal, requested that they cancel the fee as I had no further use for their site, as I had acquired all the information I wanted. Cancellation was not effected and another quarterly fee was deducted automatically out of my bank account. I wrote again two weeks ago to request cancellation once again. i have not yet heard back,I have heard of several people who have had problems getting a cancellation of fees effected by Ancestry.com through a list group I belonged to a few months ago. So I have paid my way, and in fact overpaid. Will I get a refund? I doubt it. Will I get my subscription cancelled this time. If I can get an answer from them then perhaps I may. At present I am in a quandary as to what to do.

Regarding the useage of information. I can make the same claims as you can with my book A QUOTA OF QUALTROUGHS, which is under copyright, but yet I know that the genealogical information has been extracted by many people for their family history databases with out permission being sought. But what can I do about it!! Make accusations which I then have to prove? I can't be bothered. Best take the approach that I have contributed to someone else's work and made their research life much easier. I know one of the biggest genealogical organisations in the business with one of the most extensive websites has had persons extract information from A QUOTA OF QUALTROUGHS in the exact format I presented it in my book. I queried them. I had to prove to them it was my material. Frankly I couldn't be bothered!! I took the approach that if they thought my book that good that the information was worthy of copying then I will accept the compliment and take a bow!!

As to the other point- the variance of policy.
Rootsweb said that names, dates places etc were public information and no copyright could be claimed on them. Only the format in which it was preented could.

Ancestry.com took the view that they could claim copyright on names, dates and places as well as the format it wsa presented.

Both websites are of reputable standing in the genealogical community. They both have close ties. Look at Rootsweb homepage.....

Therefore why the variance in policy??

Shall we take the phone books. Most(All?) phone companies have their listings under copyright. The listings comprise names, addresses, places, phone numbers.
We use is every day. Being under copyright, this using of the information is breaking copyright unless permission is sought form the phone company. How stupid!

Now if all that is under copyright, then we cannot use it in ANY way without first seeking permission from the phone company I can't give you my phone number, my name, my address without first getting permission from the phone company to do so. Otherwise I would be breaking the copyright law. And who pays for the listing - I do!! Taking the copyfight law to the extreme... yes, but that's the law!!

A business listed in the phone book could not advertise his/her business in any way (on TV in the newspapers etc), - ie the business'name, address, phone number- without first seeking permission from the phone company to do so. How many do so, I bet none do! In advertising his business he is doing so for financial gain, which if the copyright law was imposed he would be doing so illegally. The law can be seen as an ass in these circumstances.

All of us have broken the copyright law in relation to phonebook, and many other instances, because in its present state the copyright law has outlived its useby date.

Like you I spent thousands of dollars back in the 1980s in travelling costs to the Isle of Man and UK (from New Zealand), researchers fees, postage etc etc in gathering information and genealogical data for the book A QUOTA OF QUALTROUGHS. I did so for the pleasure of seeing the work in a permanent presentation for the future of the QUALTROUGH family. Because we ran our of copies we have put the book on line at the fmaily website. It is and has been my pleasure to do so.

My experience is that the copyright law in it present format is unworkable, It is and has always been broken and will continue to be so - just look at the internet.... , It is open to as many interpretations as there are people.

Why will it continue to be broken..... because the law is not relevant to the year 2001, thats why.

Elizabeth Feisst, Australia.