Patrick,
Thank you for this well thought out post. In some ways you have clarified my thoughts.
On-line access hurts our business.  It allows a VM to bypass us on the simple work and only send us the work that they can't accomplish on their own
I agree. But not all VM's do this or accept it. Some VM's have come to realize that online access threatens their greatest asset. An asset they have spent years to develop, promote and expand. A VM's exclusive network of independent local abstractors is the greater benefit they offer their clients. Online records threaten the VM's as much as they threaten independent local abstractors.

VM's I have spoken with are as much against online publication of the records as I am and for the same reasons. Many have told their abstractors not to use online sources and some even put this mandate on their orders. Their reasons are not always stated but it is clear they do not want abstractors to use this "tool".

I"ve seen posts here on SOT indicating E&O is denied to those using online sources. The providers concern is the accuracy of the source which cannot be verified until it is too late. Online sites exclude themselves from any responsibilty for accuracy, timeliness or reliability. Statutes deny this disclaimer for the records held at the courthouse. Searching online is an error that may not be covered by your E&O.

But boycotting its available value while it's here is, I think, senseless
I haven't called for any boycott Patrick. Our clients,  E&O providers, and many legislators are.

I don't think, however, that lumping malevalent use of on-line records with legitimate use is productive.
I didn't lump them together Patrick. The Internet and those who publish the records online do. Some claim they separate them with passwords but it is a very ineffective separation. Choicepoint made this claim but it was laughably easy to circumvent. Even the most diligent password protection is nothing more than a padlock on a paper box. If it's on the Web it's available to every malevalent or legitimate user with a computer connection.

In some cases, on-line records are actually better than the official courthouse records.  One might be better off purchasing title plant records on-line than visiting a courthouse where the records are mismanaged and/or widely misposted.
This is also true. Only a local abstractor and the online company would know. Local abstractors can make this claim but they do so at their own risk if it is counter to the claim made in the online companies TOS or disclaimer. Your report cannot be more or less accurate than your source. If a claim is made, the abstractors report will be checked against the records at the courthouse.

Fact is, David, our fee for a current owner search in our home county is higher than yours is in your home county.
I'm not concerned about the fees you charge. You are not my competition Patrick. My fees are based on the time and difficulty of the search in any particular county and I am certain yours are too. You have no access to the courthouses in my area and only one county provides online access to some of it's records. You shouldn't concern yourself with my fees either. While I could provide my services in your area as both you and John have assured me the online records are even better than those offered at your local courthouse. I would consider it unethical on my part to invade your business via the Internet. You made this same assurance to the $25 abstractor looking for accurate online sources and to foreign outsource companies looking for more U.S. records to exploit. Both monitor this site and now they can reassure their clients of your endorsement.

If you want your voice to be heard by those who have the power to make changes that will benefit our industry, a unified voice is necessary. 
My voice is being heard Patrick by those who tell me they have the power to make changes. I consult with legislators, government officials, law enforcement agencies, reporters, and associations at local, state and federal levels. I assist them in their own investigations and provide them with information they need to protect their citizens. At first, I had to go to them but now many are coming to me. Last week I was contacted by two federal agencies, eleven county officials, two attorneys, and two technology firms. They learned about my efforts  from officials and legislators as far away as Michigan and Alaska. I think my voice is being heard by those who can and are affecting change.

I didn't take your comments personally Patrick. Well, actually I did take the complimentary ones personally. :) I want you and John to know also I meant no disrespect of your company. While I responded to Johns post, my reference to "naivity" and "blind greed" was not intended to be directed at him or you personally. The blind greed reference was intended for those who make the records available online for a profit and those who buy their way into your market through online access. Neither of these groups have any respect for your company.