42 votes

Ron Paul vs. RonPaul.com

Comment viewing options

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

which

is a very bad thing.

Freedom.

I am admittedly confused.

I am admittedly confused. That said, there have been a couple times that something Dr Paul has done was confusing as well. Each time, as I analyzed the situation, it turned out that Dr Paul was standing on solid, principled ground.

Therefore, for the time being, I will not judge Dr Paul in the wrong.

HOWEVER, in the court of public opinion, this is a huge blunder and does not seem worthwhile a fight at all.

I'm also confused

But I, too, am willing to wait until I understand before supporting or condemning. The Law forces your hand,sometimes, and makes you take legal measures you'd rather not.

I know that the law requires that you defend your brand or you lose the right to control it in the future. Why has Disney been so protective of an image of a rodent? Because every rendition of that image that Disney allows to stand without challenge will give others a precident to use in court to claim that THEIR rendition of the image is allowable, too. Sometimes Disney acts like a dick. Sometimes they have to. (I'm NOT a fan of Disney.)

I don't know if this applies or not.

You are thinking correctly,

You are thinking correctly, however Ron Paul never applied for a registered trademark, nor did he (or his people) ever contest the long in business web site in question. In fact, Ron and his people sent congratulatory missives to the site previously (as can be seen on the site).

Put not your faith in princes.

Put not your faith in princes.

What about RonPaul.net?

It is either the same owners or someone redirecting to the .com. Why not go after that one too? I own F***RonPaul.com [self-censored]. Is that at risk? I think I'll redirect it to this thread.

They should have a joint money bomb

I would donate $50 to help raise the $250k for Dr. Paul to buy the site and put this stupid PR disaster behind him.

Michael Nystrom's picture

Oh brother

His associated organizations have plenty of money. You had people on here and at the Ron Paul forums donating blood to raise money for those money bombs. We already had the money bombs that put all that money into his pockets. And now he pulls this?

How much money did RonPaul.com alone help raise for him already, with their videos, promotion of moneybombs, Facebook promotion, (over 100K likes), and their email list? Well in excess of $250K, I would dare wager.

For six years they extended Ron Paul a great courtesy, and this is how he pays it back? Huh. Ok, I see now. Clear as a bell.

Get the Campaign for Liberty to buy it. Several million in leftover campaign funds went there after the "Presidential Campaign" ended.

Michael Nystrom's picture

I think Ron Paul is being a hypocrite about it

He's choosing to use government force, when a free market solution will do just fine. That site has been up for at least 6 years, and he never said boo. When he was running for president, he took their support.It was all fine when they were pushing every money bomb. "Look at our internet support!"

That was all good for six years, now suddenly he decides to call the cops on them?

Doesn't seem right.

There is also an interesting discussion of it here:

http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2013/02/the-battle-over...

Perhaps the site has only

Perhaps the site has only been active for six years (I didn't check the Wayback Macine) but they've held the domain since November 22, 2000 (check their Whois).

Michael, I still don't have all of the information

but trademark protection is something I'm firmly behind, as a fundamentalist libertarian. I am very much against copyrights and patents, but trademarks are inappropriately lumped in with them in many discussions.

Further, as others have pointed out, domain name registration generally goes through companies which have agreed to abide by ICANN rules. As such, I'm pretty sure that contesting for ownership of a domain which has your trademark (or NAME) falls well and clearly within the bounds of the rules that domain name registrars agreed to.

Daily Paul makes it clear that it is not representative of Ron Paul. RonPaul.com does not, because it can't.

Like I said, though, I don't have all of the information, so I might be missing a detail or two, but so far from everything I've read, Ron Paul is right to contest the domain name registration.

Michael Nystrom's fists can punch through FUD.

you cant be a libertarian

after reading that - im sorry if im blunt i realize your last comments opened to an open mind so please listen- theres more than 1 ron paul in the united states. period. end of story. god didnt give ron paul the rights to the domains because its the same name. unless he was uniquely the only ron paul. and 2 the site doesnt claim to be ron paul. their CLEARLY either supporters or assholes for money - but welcome tot he free market - u cant defend libertarianism if you dont see selfish investments - which we all do - so supporter or not they have all the rights in the world to forever own that site. plus ron can make money off the site even at their cost so its a stupid action by him. ill support the fact he got me into alot of reading and books, but hes being a hypocrite. makes me question his whole campaign.

Freedom.

what is the just role of government in libertarianism?

it's the third-party arbitrator in defense of contracts, both written and unwritten (natural rights). in this case, we have two examples where the Ron Paul to which the site's name refers is within his rights to make this complaint.

Firstly, the way in which "ronpaul.com" is used clearly brings many people to the site thinking they will see an official website of former presidential candidate Ronald Ernest Paul. note that the front page doesn't mention that it's independent until the fine print at the bottom. above which, you have what looks very official. this could be considered fraud. I don't think it is, but it would be well within libertarianism to bring a complaint of this type to the third-party arbiter for a decision.

Secondly, anyone who pays for domain name registration service enters into a written contract, part of which includes agreeing to the rules of ICANN. pursuing a legal remedy to a conflict, as outlined in the contracts, is absolutely libertarian.

it's what makes me a libertarian and not an anarchist.

Michael Nystrom's fists can punch through FUD.

Michael Nystrom's picture

Additionally, after further thought

I find it odd that he would take this route. A quick Google search on "Ron Paul domain dispute" turns up a bunch of articles, and it will likely only grow.

Not to mention this thread, the 42 page thread on RPF, and on EPJ.

Suffice it to say that from a purely rational, economic standpoint, I think he's costing himself far more than $250K in terms of lost goodwill and respect among his supporters.

His main image selling point was that he's principled, and that he lives by those principles. Now by appealing to force - to the UN no less - he takes all of those years of "words" and with a single action, throws it all away.

Everyone I've talked to thinks it is sucky on Ron Paul's part.

Strictly from a PR standpoint, it is not a wise move.

Mike, you had the right idea

Mike, you had the right idea changing the site to deemphasize a single person to instead focus on the ideas. Who's to say this lawyer won't come gunning for you next? I think the whole thing reeks.

Screw Ron Paul

Yeah, screw Ron Paul!!! What's he ever done for anyone?

Ron Paul, you have to be perfect and do everything perfect, because traitors and turncoats are real and will tear you apart the first moment we have to turn on you.

The guys at RonPaul.com are not trying to extort money from you. And they haven't made hundreds of thousands of dollars using your name. They're very altruistic and have done it all for you. They just want their fair share.

You didn't do anything to make your name famous... they did it all. Sure, you say, real Ron Paul fans would probably just give the domain to you... what did you do? You just talked about freedom and liberty and woke people up to these things. The ronpaul.com guys made money off your name. Isn't that what really counts in a free market? Forget about honor and ethics, we have.

You have it backwards

It was his internet supporters that placed Ron Paul and his message on the map.

I hardly think that RonPaul.com people are super rich because of their RP websites... LOL!

...think it through, ... enough people visited one website to make the web administrators super rich, however not enough people voted to get ron paul elected... doesn't make sense.

maybe, deep down inside Ron Paul wants to rid himself of his squeeky clean persona? It's working.

Glad you chimed in first.

I'll keep my rant a lot shorter.
Really, Dr. Paul? You shit all over the Idaho grassroots, too. This is way beyond "not cool."

Love or fear? Chose again with every breath.

What happened in Idaho?

Dr. Paul knows

I ranted about it at the time. Dig through old posts if you want details. The official campaign pulled a "divide and conquer" here that took him from getting 24% in 2008 to getting 17% in 2012.
The last morale busting stunt was to tell the phone bank volunteers that made the most calls that we were going to get to meet with him, sit down and chat. The day arrives, we are told our time will be cut short so he can do a CNN interview. Then CNN had "technical difficulties" and we were told we would get a picture with him. Then we were ushered into a room where a campaign worker came in and gave up a pep talk... told us not to "creep him out" - we were pretty much treated like unwanted groupies.

Love or fear? Chose again with every breath.

Those all sound like

Those all sound like Benton decisions.

I agree with you 100%

I agree with you 100% Michael.

Just wait until he endorses Rand

Talk about bombs.. it should be HUGE.

I was looking forward to discussing this topic but..

I keep getting a "403 Access Denied" on a comment I posted on a similar thread:

http://www.dailypaul.com/273846/ron-paul-seeks-un-arbitratio...

Where did that thread go? Was it deleted?

www.youtube.com/truefictions

I try to change people every day. Do You?

Trevor Lyman's picture

This is my response:

You have it exactly right,

You have it exactly right, Trevor. It's a classless legal maneuver that violates Ron's own principles. Has he suddenly abandoned everything upon retirement? If so, it's just as well he never won the presidency as it proves the truism that no man is an angel and that is a timeless truth wisely spelled out by the founders in the Constitution.

Many of you are missing the

Many of you are missing the point. The Ron Paul that I know and love was firmly anti-UN. It makes no sense to me that he would seek intervention from an organization that he's worked against for decades. I think something smells incredibly fishy here. The only source for this information that I have found originates at RonPaul.com. I find it more likely that RonPaul.com is creating a bogus story because Ron Paul doesn't want to pay them what they wanted. There's far too little information on this story for me to take it too seriously.

"I will not submit to authority of man. I'm alive, I'm awake, this is more than I can take." -Jordan Page

There's a lawyer's name and

There's a lawyer's name and signature on the legal document. Is this a real person? (It's too late and I'm too tired to check)

the message is Liberty

not ron paul.

...just saying.

If the owner doesn't want to sell it then he doesn't have to.

Unfortunately for Ron Paul, the domain is OWNED by someone. This person has paid for it and kept it operating as they saw fit. It was never stolen as he has legally paid for it. If they wish to sell it it is their choice and they should never be forced to do so. Ron Paul is no longer a public figure; no more so than say Bill Clinton (yet billclinton.com is available). Ron Paul had an opportunity to purchase the domain when it went up for sale, his not doing so was a choice and the consequences of not doing so are of his own doing.

Just because the USA Constitution or the UN states that Ron Paul has the "right" to that domain doesn't make it correct (remember slavery was legal in the constitution). It goes against the principles of libertarianism which Ron Paul has tried to bring to light.

And my last point, what if there are two people named Ron Paul, who gets the right to the domain name? The politician? The Actor? The NFL Quarterback?

Always live by your principles...