Hi Sam,
Here are some observations that I have concerning the trail that led to the situation as it stands today.

In many states the the county clerks were allowed to charge an additional fee at the time of filing. The purpose was to provide funds to the county clerks office that would allow the office to upgrade and computerize. Their was no oversite by the commissioners as is normally the case. The county clerk alone could decide how the money was spent.

The technology vendors smelled money and sent out knowledgeable sales people to convince the clerks who were usually not particularly knowlegeable about to computers of the virtues of the vendors software and imaging equipment. If these salespeople knew that other companies would quickly seize the images documents, they were hesitant to le tthe clerk know they would be loosing control of the documents they were elected to protect.

So the technology companies began imaging both backwards and forwards as quickly as they could. Some were found to be selling the images to third parties themselves until this was stopped by contracts that were judical committees demanded.

National data aggregators began vast fishing expeditions to demand all documents in electronic format delivered to them at cost of reproduction. They usually quoted the state sunshine acts or Federal Freedom of Information Act with implied threats of lawsuits if the clerk did not respond within ten days. If a clerk responded the copies were only available in paper form, the aggregators reeled in the largest asset the county owned, the documents their taxpayers had paid the county to preserve.

Many county clerks noticed a drop in revenue as each time they were forced to sell the images in bulk they were in fact "selling the store". The county and all the taxpayers lose. The local abstractors who relied on the county repository  loses.

The counties turned to their technology vendors for protection and were told they could replace the lost revenue by publishing online. Often this arrangement included a large commission for the technology company on every document or subscription sold. The counties learned quickly enough that publishing on the Internet could actually further reduce revenue to the county. Some began placing watermarks on the documents that read "Not Official" and the online images They hope was that this would somehow encourage people to go to the county instead of the website or to the companies that had already seized the documents in bulk.

After having been snookered at every turn, some counties are finally beginning to fight back to gain control over their taxpayers documents. The Michigan counties are a good example. Mildred Dodak of Saginaw County and Ginny McLaren of Tuscola county joing two other counties and beat the aggregators and national title companies time and again through the state courts and finally in Federal Court. Their position was that the bulk transfer was unfair to local taxpayers and the county itself. The judges agreed as I am sure so did every citizen who was made aware of bulk access to their records.

The companies that are taking the counties out of the loop by buying all the digital records are also taking your business out of the loop. The records are electronically shipped, aggregated, duplicated, sold and resold all over the world.

What can turn this around. Even slight changes in the FOIA laws could effective stop the bulk transfer. Taxpayer outrage can and has taken many of the counties offline and will likely take more down as taxpayers are informed that the information they entrusted to local officials is accessible by anyone, anywhere in the world with a computer connection.

You should ask your counties to stand up for the security of their taxpayers and allow access to the records ONLY within the jurisdiction where they were filed. It is what their constituents expect.