42 votes

Ron Paul vs. RonPaul.com



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

This is serious. EVERYBODY MUST KNOW THIS!

So I went and checked all the cases as best as possible in my own capability and this is actually very disturbing as how people are taking this.

If you read the document Ron Paul's attorney has reported, there is no mention of stripping of the content and merchandise of the website in the document posted by its own website. All he want is his name, reputation, identity back. It's almost like asking to have your own passport or credit to your name as the composer of your own song.

The pages have 65 pages in total in the full files. The first 13 pages are the actual complain, the rest is ICANN policies which attached to explain why the complains are valid. However, ronpaul.com also have a respond the complaint that is very interestingly hilarious as well. I'll get to that.

- The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN, /ˈaɪkæn/ eye-kan) is a nonprofit private organization headquartered in Los Angeles, California, United States, that was created to oversee a number of Internet-related tasks previously performed directly on behalf of the U.S. government by other organizations, notably the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA), which ICANN now operates.

This means that ICANN is operated right under US not UN. Why does it sound like UN get involve?

- If you read the complaint, the owner of this site (not the representative) used the service from fabulous.com, which it is stationed in Australia. Yes, it's in Australia. ICANN, as a company, can't resolve this matter as a private company so they have to use UN as a medium of communication. UN has not authority over this case whatsoever. Worse, fabulous.com is operated under ICANN agreement. (http://www.fabulous.com/whois/)

- Now, the only way ICANN can resolve this is through WIPO, which is an agency of UN, so that the company can enact their contract service with Tim Martin and Ron Paul. Tim Martin has also signed into this knowingly, voluntarily and intentionally to abide it....unless he didn't read.

WIPO is the agency that every country's and everybody copyrights are collected. All your invention, creations from your own songs, arts, literatures, invention, small to large company names go to. They are nothing like copyrights law in US. Their copyright law allows me (as a composer as well) to have my music credit me. You can still buy from me and copy and share it all over the place to anyone as long as it has my name on it. However, you can't SELL it as if it is yours.

Exp: Mozart's music is Mozart's. You can't sell it without buying the copyright etc, but you can get the music sheet, play it anywhere, teach anyone, copy as many as you won't as long as it has Mozart's name. That's an actual fair copyright. Another way is to buy the copyright from the present owner.

Here comes the most catchy part that you guys might wanna know:

- According to the complaint, the first price he is asking Ron Paul to buy from is all the way to 850K. That's almost a million for a name. Ron Paul then offered 50K. He then reduced the priced down 250K.

- Apparently, Ron Paul decided not to buy the name .com or .org etc. (just the name, he can keep all the content and merchandise according to the complaint) He wanted to resolve this through ICANN contract policies that Tim Martin signed to promise that he must abide it. The punishment that Tim would get if he lost? ZEUCH! This is nothing like Aaron's Swartz getting 35-50 years in jail. If Ron Paul wins, then Tim must give it to Ron Paul otherwise Ron Paul doesn't have to resolve it anymore. ICANN and WIPO can literally take action on Tim by themselves depending on the law of that country. That will become something like Swartz to protect the company's credibility of protecting their own contract.

Here is the last part:

- Ron Paul then decided that if he won't be given the name back, he will just make his own website called ronpaulhomepage.com. It's under construction and it says that it will be given to Ron Paul for free right away when it's done.

Ronpaul.com (Tim Martin) responded exactly like this "To avoid these complications we'd like to offer you an alternative domain name, RonPaul.org, for your new website at no cost whatsoever. Please don't use a monstrosity such as "RonPaulsHomePage.com" as is being speculated on the forums. RonPaul.org is an attractive, high quality alternative, and it won't cost you
anything. (Other than the annual renewal fee; all domains have to be renewed each year and that costs about $10 per year.)"

This part of respond....
"Please don't use a monstrosity such as "RonPaulsHomePage.com" as is being speculated on the forums. "

Why can't the owner of the identity make his own website? >>> monstrosity <<http://www.ronpaul.com/2013-02-04/ron-paul-chris-kyle-had-it...

Regardless of what you think of Chris Kyle, "live by sword, die by sword" is nowhere near as he deserves it "Had it coming". In Ron's definition, when you live in violence you are likely to die by violence. You can think of it as a karma. However, as a person born in Thailand (Buddhist country), karma is cause an effect of nature system. Not blacks deserve blacks white deserve white.

So Ron Paul didn't mean that, Tim did. Where do you think the racist newsletter came from even RP has his name as a publisher not the writer.

The full document is still in ronpaul.com page, pls download and upload on to the website. The respond letter is also there. Read through it if you wanna know what's going on.

This is so much to go through doing research especially when all the media is hyping all over this except this one:

http://www.indecisionforever.com/blog/2013/02/11/ron-paul-se...

Wait.. RP want it back?

When did RP own the domain name? He never owned it. He didn't want to own it. For 6 years the owners kept it clean.

Let's say that 6 years ago some friends built a road and named it The Granger. I never paid any attention. I was busy doing my thing. Then I have some time and see that I could make some money if I had that road. It's got my name.. I could charge folks a toll for using the road with my name.

My friends say,, sure Granger, you can have that road $800K. That's crazy. I'm not going to pay that. So then they say, $250K Granger and you can have that road.

Well... that road has MY name.. so I go to the state and file a claim to MY road because it's got my name, everyone knows I'm The Granger, so they should give it to me. All my friends who LOVE LOVE LOVE me, no matter what I do, will back me, and demand my friends who built the road give it to me. I am LOVED. I am famous. No one knows about them. No one cares about them. Who cares if they built that road? That's their problem. The road has MY name.. I'm claiming it. I don't owe them a damn thing! The state can use its FORCE to give me MY Road with MY name.

Seems to me, that is what is going on.

PLEASE EDUCATE ME.. becasue I'm not getting it.

Okay

1. Let's say the name is Disneyland and it's not just a road but a whole theme park.
2. It's not just the name of the road and theme park; all the attractions and merch is Disney themed.
3. They post a small sign out front, under a giant "Disneyland" sign, which reads "Fan Park".
4. The builders of the road/park signed a binding agreement with IPARK Inc (a private organization) that they would not use someone else's trademark or take advantage of a famous name for commercial purposes when they built their park or they could lose the road/park in the event of a dispute and decision that they breached the agreement.

Allrighty then

I took an entertainment law class at UCLA, and there had to have been a dozen fresh attorney's there representing one department of Disnayland's many domain names or another. Seems at this point many people who worked for Ron paul let him down.

2. right

3. LOL fan park....

4. this is assumptions.. disney land is part of the gloabl machine that puts us where we are with domain names.. if Disneyland established a rEVOLution attraction featuring Ron Paul, they would pay him for the domain name and "own" him. As it is, some fans bouth the domain name, want to CAPITALIZE on it, and folks have a fit. Who knows what Ron Paul is doing? The vid suggests he's simply going through the legal motions to take possession of his name. At what price, they are not saying. It's not going to be free.

Here is why

I thought I already wrote this on the comment and now I can't find it either.

Ok, this argument about there are many people sharing the same name right? But don't you think that you have other unique identification as well such as your faces, your work, you voices, your fingerprint, etc.

In that website, it clearly represents Ron Paul without permission using his face all over the web, his podcast, his quote, his video, his debate, his...etc you can go look at it yourself. There is no mention about that this is not the official Ron Paul that owns this page. Let's say there is Ron Paul basketball player and he's this 25 years old kid brown skin with long blond hair and he made a website called ronpaul.com using his identity in his website like his work, his face, his body, his record of basketball performance, etc. This doctor/candidate Ron Paul can't complain to ask for the web name to ICANN. Unless Doctor Ron Paul asked basketball player Ron Paul privately and this brown skin with long blond hair is willing to give/sell, they can do so as well.

Let's say your name is Jim Tanner and you make jimtanner.com. In that website, it has your signature, your works, your creations, your face, your identity, etc that indicates clearly that it's you, a CEO Jim Tanner that's not you don't have a chance to complain against you.

This is to protect somebody imposing or framing you of something on world wide web. Also, strangers can't claim to be you and dispute you from merchandize to identity/reputation theft...etc

Like let's says somebody said something racist and discriminating while having the same name as you, he posted that you said this with your face. You can protect yourself that the owner of this website is not you for example.

But they didn't say anything racist

Someone did that on "Ron Paul Newsletter", and he did nothing but deny he did it.

I only wish he would continue being a messanger and tech us what's up with this rather than leaving us assuming.

Because...

He didn't keep an eye on it. Since he make that mistake, should he repeat the same thing? He actually told the media several times already that he didn't write it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9gT3I_W0kKM

And Ben Swann had to go search for the author/writer of that newsletter.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rGH77lZsglU

Can you blame him? He didn't even know the name of the site's owner.

You admit he made a mistake

He didn't keep an eye on it.. he can't find out who the owner is.. did he try? I know he deny's writing the newsletter.. maybe he would deny baing RON PAUL? Maybe RON PAUL is the same folks who write the racist stuff in his newsletter with his name?

I don't know. But I don't believe ronpaul.com was done in bad faith, and I think rather than paying a law firm to FORCE he the owners of ronpaul.com, he should have paid someone to find the owners of ronpaul.com and made a deal according to his message and principles.. not according to precident, scandal and FORCE.

PS.. RON PAUL may or may not be the honorable congressman Doctor Ronald Ernest Paul RETIRED, we don't know.

I don't know all the circumstances but

I don't see how he has right to "his" name. Are we suppose to automatically give rights to a name to the most notable person? We are on a slippery slope of legality when someone is forbidden a name just because someone "famous" already had it.

This is what happens when lawyers run society.

I see nothing different than

I see nothing different than what Michael does. He lounges around all day really doing nothing except looking once in a while to destroy other's free speech. He asks for his yearly living expenses once a year and you all give it to him so his fat ass can sit here and continue doing nothing. He actually has done nothing. You never see a clear view from him... why? Because he wants all of your stupid asses here so he can make money from you.

When was the last time you saw him actually take a true stand on anything? Why? Because he is a pussy.
Yeah, I'm calling you out bitch. Do you actually have any political views or are you just happy sitting here watching people argue and taking their money?

Plenty of people are

Plenty of people are certainly making a ton of money off of Ron Paul's name and ideas, but there is nothing inherently wrong with that, regardless of what their personal beliefs are. It simply illustrates how a market works.

upvoted

Upvoted, just so people can see stupidity on such a massive scale.

as a friend of mine commented

"This seems inconsequential compared to the good he's doing. In fact, I might even consider giving him a pass if it were discovered he was a private mass murderer."

That's an absurd example. No

That's an absurd example. No one gets a free pass, especially as a mass murderer.

with a moniker like velveeta underground

you'd think you would have gotten the obvious humor.

wtf?

Now that he's out of office

There is sure lots of commotion, trying to drag Ron Paul's good name through the mud.

First the [misinterpreted] comments over Chris Kyle, now this. Something's not right here, and I'm not talking about rights to property or free speech either.

There's something foul going on in the already foul background.

I believe in the freedom to be what we choose to be.

Business

i'm sorry. that's just wrong. Dr.Paul shouldn't be going to the UN of all places, yet.
as a free market believer, this should have been worked out over a business lunch or meeting. i truely belive that Ron Paul could have made a deal and brought the price down to what ever he thought was reasonable, if you get rid of the mailing list at least.

The only exception is that he is honestly upset that they are using his name. if he didn't check off on their using his name for profit, i can see were this is coming from.

Edit~ had another thought.

He's not going to the UN

Don't be so ready to believe this disinformation.

true enough. i still need

true enough. i still need proof that it wasn't him.

More youtube videos

I just searched "Ron Paul" for the "today", and there are several new videos attacking Ron Paul for this law suit. I guess this is the new racist news letters. Makes me so angry, but I'm not surprised that people are going after him, he is still having spreading liberty.

emails

I suggest anyone who gave their email address to ronpaul.com go back and unsubscribe to the list. They made it clear that they intend to sell your emails to someone needing an "untapped" donor base.

Give RONPAUL.COM Back to RON PAUL

If it weren't for Ron Paul's name and his work the owners of the domains wouldn't have it PERIOD. Yes, they kept the domains to make sure the enemies wouldn't control it and they did a GREAT job in doing so... but now it's time to let this courageous and brave man CONTINUE his mission in educating the younger generations and America on the Liberty Movement in his OWN way. We mustn't forget what Ron Paul's message is and what he stands for.

Can't the domain owners of RONPAUL.COM and RONPAUL.org transfer ALL their links from RONPAUL.com to RONPAUL.org and give RONPAUL.com BACK to Ron Paul? As an IT person that's not a hard task to do.

In my opinion they should give RONPAUL.com back to Ron Paul with NOTHING in return In Support of the LIBERTY & R3VOLution Movement.. as without Ron Paul neither domains would have the notoriety it has now.

To be honest I would much rather follow RON PAUL himself than some grassroots supporters as I'm very interested in Ron Paul's NEXT steps for the Liberty Movement now that's he's officially out of DC.

Give RONPAUL.COM back to Ron Paul.

"Give it back"?

What do you own that someone else might think they deserve? I'm sure someone somewhere believes you owe them.

Yeah. There should be a law

Yeah. There should be a law against anybody owning RonPaul.com other than Ron Paul himself. In fact, we should petition the government to force the owners to give it back.

Now we're talking. /!-- dude, like wtf?--/

Gotta love the Google Cache..

Here is the link to a previous thread that somehow is no longer on the DP related to this subject:

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:v_yblpx...

I am posting that link because I believe the comments made on that thread carry some value to this discussion.

Here is my comment about this topic that was posted on that deleted thread:

"The RonPaul.com folks are "selling" (.com) Ron Paul..

Submitted by truefictions on Fri, 02/08/2013 - 19:44. Permalink

But is it really Ron Paul? Nope. (.com is a top level domain for commerce)

Are they committing fraud by trying to "sell" a product that they do not have to deliver by using the Ron Paul Mark? Maybe..

I have not read the complaint in full yet but it looks like he is not far off base from the principles he has delivered over and over again.

Let's not forget that the "folks" making the complaint (if it is indeed factual) are possibly (lawyers?) from this company http://www.leclairryan.com who may have not fully consulted with their supposed client (Ron Paul).

Sit back and relax folks, lets wait to hear what Ron Paul has to say about this, if he wants to say anything about it at all.

We could only hope to be as principled as Ron Paul is and I see no one here who has any moral standing (including myself of course) to judge our guy. Now go ahead and throw the first stone if you dare.

my2cents"

Why was that thread deleted? (Just curious..)

www.youtube.com/truefictions

I try to change people every day. Do You?

Baloney

Lawyers are expensive. After years of dormancy, they don't suddenly start going after people or companies without authorization. You are not thinking before posting in this instance.

for those sitting around gossiping like girls

waiting for answers, and too stupid to google, here's something for you [Ladies].. posted under message by Jack Hunter on this topic

-----------------
full original thread http://www.facebook.com/jack.hunter.397/posts/298778630248015

by Bryce Steinhoff: There's a lot of misinformation about this being spread around. Here's the deal:

The UN has no authority to strip a domain name from its owner. Ron Paul certainly knows this and that is not what any of this is about. I repeat, none of this is about the UN or their authority.

When anybody registers a domain name, they voluntarily agree to an ICANN policy called the Uniform Domain-name Dispute-resolution Policy, or UDRP. ICANN authorizes *several* entities to handle arbitration when a third party submits a claim based on the UDRP policy which the domain registrant voluntarily agreed to. In this case Ron Paul's lawyers choose WIPO, a UN agency. Certain criteria such as trademark rights and "bad faith" are outlined in the UDRP for evaluation by the arbiter, which are the things that Ron Paul's lawyers mention in their UDRP complaint.

In the case of RonPaul.com and .org, the registrants and registrars are outside the US (this is not necessarily the people who run the sites). Because of this, it is logical that Ron Paul's lawyers opted to use the UN-connected WIPO agency to do the arbitration. It is *incidentally* connected to the UN; it doesn't have anything to do with UN "authority".

You don't have to agree with Ron Paul on this as Jack pointed out, but don't cry NAP abuse when a provision of this voluntary contract is exercised. The arbitration can even be overturned by the courts if necessary, but that's unlikely.

You know,

I think there's a lot more to the story than both sides are letting on. So, unlike many posters here, I'll wait to pass judgement on either side... not that I have any right to pass judgement on others, but there you go lol.

"There is no creature on earth half so terrifying as a truly just man."- Varys

"Winter is coming."-House Stark

How is this not perfectly rational?

the difference between anarchy and liberty is government. the just role of government is being the third-party arbiter in contract disputes, both written and unwritten (i.e., natural law, bill of rights).

if Ron Paul thinks that the site "ronpaul.com" is using his name and likeness to trick people into thinking it's an official website, even if subtly so, he is within his rights to contest the domain name. misuse of someone's name is fraud. in this case, it's definitely debatable, which is -precisely- why two parties would go to a third party for arbitration.

also, the owner of ronpaul.com entered into a contract with a domain name registration service, one which particularly requires compliance with ICANN rules and which outlines the course of conflict resolution. again, in the case where two parties are not in agreement and there is a written set of rules, third party arbitration is key.

why are so many people here saying that "Ron Paul is using Force of Law" or some such?

Michael Nystrom's fists can punch through FUD.