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.

If someone else named Ron Paul owned it...

...they would have a legal right to hold it. The terms of buying a domain with a possible trademark violation is "bad faith." Misrepresenting yourself as the trademarked entity or criticizing it can be interpreted as bad faith. Being Ron Paul the food blogger would be a safe from losing the domain. What they are doing at RonPaul.com can be interpreted as bad faith. When we buy domain names we aren't subject to U.S. law. Freedom of speech goes out the window in that respect.

Michael Nystrom's picture

Correct

Why choose a solution of government force when a free market solution exists?

He's the man.

He does want to sell it...for

He does want to sell it...for a $250,000 ransom.

Value is determined in

Value is determined in negotiation between parties. Things have no inherent worth until someone wants or needs them.

Let Ron pay the market price... What's wrong with that?

There must be more than one "Ron Paul" out there. I imagine every one of them could make a similar claim.

What if Ron Paul were named John Smith instead?

you are totally missing the point. your post is silly.

First, "Ron Paul" is NOT a common name.
Second, the person behind this site is NOT named "John Smith", much less Ron Paul.
Third, are you arguing this "John Smith" not only has Ron Paul's same unusual name but also LOOKS just like the Ron Paul we all know ... and THAT is why Ron Paul's picture is on the site?

Of course not. Instead you are making the lame argument that enriching a pimp by frequenting the prostitute is actually a good example of the "free market". Don't we don't all know that prostitutes are NEARLY ALWAYS recruited initially to their "profession" through unusual leverage (often physical violence but sometimes drug addiction; abject poverty; often as minors; sometimes "sold" by other people; often by trickery or connivance; usually after having been physically/psychologically/sexually abused in childhood; or other angles which makes the "free will" argument for the pimp just a transparent, Faustian rationalization)?

Of course we do. But you want to deflect this into a debate about "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin"?

Bill of Rights /Amendment X: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Do you need a politician or judge to "interpret" those 28

ronpaul.com can go jump off a

ronpaul.com can go jump off a cliff.

Ron Paul 2016

did anyone notice in the

did anyone notice in the lawsuit paper that these domains were created by this entity in 1999 and 2000? not more recently for elections as was claimed

"and the truth shall make you free"
John 8:32

Michael Nystrom's picture

I didn't notice that

12 years? Twelve years?

And now suddenly he decides to call the cops?

He's the man.

I'm currently going through a variation on this same ransom

I have a business which has a unique name which is widely KNOWN in the community and was established through a decade of advertisement and word of mouth good will. The business has an utterly unique building, as distinct and associated to the business (to anyone who has ever seen it) as Ron Paul's face is to himself. I bought the business from its prior owner, along with all internet rights, BUT THE URL HAD BEEN POACHED WHEN THE PRIOR OWNER MISTAKENLY LET LAPSE THE DOMAIN NAME.

It would be bad enough if the poachers just held the URL for ransom with a clear "for sale" placeholder image (implying I was out of business and making it hard for anyone to find out otherwise). But they did something far worse: they have COPIED the old website, with a picture of my business building on the front page, so almost everyone -- including Google -- concludes they are the legitimate original business BUT HAVE NOT BOTHERED TO UPDATE ANYTHING, INCLUDING THE WEBSITE IN MORE THAN A DECADE. And they are hiding behind an LLC in a distant state. I could sue them -- but at what cost in terms of time and money and energy? Or I could pay the ransom -- and from a pure "business" standpoint I've been told I should. But I regard that as furthering evil but making evil, once again, profitable. Or I can undertake the expense of changing my own name and slowly re-educating the public? Or?

Anyway, the people behind ronpaul.com are displaying bad will and -- legal or not -- bad morals. Why don't they pull Ron Paul's visage if he doesn't want it there? We all know why -- their disclaimer at the bottom notwithstanding. Until/unless you've been personally stung in one of these situations you might find it difficult to relate.

MORALLY: IF YOUR NAME IS ESTABLISHED THROUGH TIME AND PUBLIC RECOGNITION IT IS *IMMORAL* FOR SOME THIRD PARTY TO POACH YOUR NAME FOR PROFIT OR TO MISREPRESENT YOU. A DISCLAIMER WHICH MANY WILL MISS DOES NOT CORRECT THIS.

The "laws" with regard to URLs are established by bureaucrats who haven't generally had to face the results of their "legalizing" something which is morally reprehensible because it causes injury o misrepresentation to the authentic holder of that name and image.

Bill of Rights /Amendment X: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Do you need a politician or judge to "interpret" those 28

Their site plainly says "FAN

Their site plainly says "FAN SITE" on the top banner. They are obviously not pretending to be an official Ron Paul site.

Could Ron Paul's team seize dailpaul.com?

dailypaul.com does appear to be using the Paul name too.

I think the ronpaul.com offer of $250k to sell the domain and email addresses of their users is sleazy, but Ron Paul's team resorting to international intellectual property laws to seize the domain without just compensation is sleazier.

Didn't Ron Paul fight against SOPA and PIPA? Why would he support the use of intellectual property to take something that he does not own?

We all want progress, but if you're on the wrong road, progress means doing an about-turn and walking back to the right road; in that case, the man who turns back soonest is the most progressive.

-C. S. Lewis

Michael Nystrom's picture

This is a real concern

And it saddens me that it has to be.

He's the man.

On the other hand, if this

On the other hand, if this helps to blow up and sink the pernicious personality cult that has formed around Ron, so be it.

So then

make it the Daily Amash ;-)

We have thousands in my area and across the state!

"What if the American people learn the truth" - Ron Paul

I think

he could if the content was still about the politician Ron Paul, but it is no longer so that's not a worry.

Daily P AU L Peace, Gold,

Daily P AU L
Peace, Gold, Love. That would be a tough claim.

Michael Nystrom's picture

Yeah, why do you think I changed it?

And took the picture down.

I had a feeling something like this might've been coming.

He's the man.

That was wise. And to think

That was wise. And to think some didn't approve of the change.

Anti Copyright and Anti Patent

I'm with Adam Kokesh, the constitution is wrong when it comes to copyrights and patents. Trademarks are a different thing, though. They fall under the category of standards, cousin to "weights and measures". If a group were to call themselves Microsoft, and I came along and called myself Microsoft in an attempt to misdirect users to my services, that would be fraud.

Perhaps one of the most notorious cases of a misdirecting domain name is WhiteHouse.com. Back in the 1990's, it was common to hear news reporters say, "For an official response on the Clinton - Lewinsky sex scandal, visit WhiteHouse.com". Well, at the time, that was a porn site. The news reporters quickly came back to correct themselves, saying it's "WhiteHouse.org". That, too, was a porn site. Because the sites weren't externally linked, they didn't even need to have "Are you over 18?" cover pages. Plus, I live in Winchester, VA, home of White House, an apple company over 100 years old. They ended up buying WhiteHouseFoods.com, even though most of their literature simply calls them "White House".

A prominent HVAC company in Winchester, L P Strosnyder, got into a dispute with Winchester Wireless, a company that was supposed to set up their website. The dispute ended with L P Strosnyder cancelling service. Anyone curious where http://www.lpstrosnyder.com goes now?

I don't know if Ron Paul has made any personal explanation as to why he wouldn't have accepted the "free offer" from the site owners, but I agree that he is within his rights, both legally and ethically, to gain ownership.

Michael Nystrom's fists can punch through FUD.

Pure Tripe

Owning a patent is bad, but a Trademark is good?

Why not, as the Constitution already provides, protect all property?

After all, if an inventor doesn't own the product from his mind, there will be no reason to afford Trademark protections.

Your argument, and Kokesh's, is Left-Anarchist, and not An-Cap.
The People own ideas... that is your claim.
Not very Free Market, IMO.
The people owned all of the ideas in the former Soviet Union. Worked out well for them, didn't it?

This is a topic near to my heart

and I would like to discuss it with you at great length. Please feel free to PM me, or email benjamin@winchesterpc.com (with an easily identified title so as not to be marked as spam by mistake)

Michael Nystrom's fists can punch through FUD.

He is not going to the UN as many falsely claim

Sio much dis info about this subject.

Ron Paul own the trademark Ron Paul. Some one who does not have a claim to that trademark is using his name.

Not very complicated is it?

true-

I don't think some people read the Complaint where Dr. Paul cites a thousand examples and supporting legal cases that 'Ron Paul' is a MARK...not a registered trademark...but a trademark just the same in the eyes of the law due to it's many uses for 40+ years...a lot longer than Ronpaul.com has been around.

An arbitrator with jurisdiction is a better way to go unless you want to pay ransom for your already established property rights.

"If you want something you've never had before, you have to do something you've never done before." Debra Medina

That is what is called

That is what is called "bluffing" in a card game. Legally speaking Ron has no valid claim to make against this site. It's all smoke.

Ron Paul does not owe them

Ron Paul does not owe them anything. If someone took out a domain in my name, I would do the same. Especially if the domain was used in such a way I disagree with. It's almost as if they have have kidnapped his name and now demanding ransom. $250,000 is way to much for a domain.

I don't go over to that sight but what kind of content is on it?

Apparently almost none here

Apparently almost none here understand free market principles, and there is an alarming amount of ignorance of current trademark and copyright law. So few here are able to discuss either matter with competence that I honestly think the Ron Paul movement is completely finished as of this lawsuit, which is disappointing but not unexpected at this point.

How many Ron Pauls are there?

I bet there are more than just one. In your estimation, every one of them would have a claim.

Heaven forbid the calamity if Ron Paul were named John Smith instead.

It pretty evident for whom

It pretty evident for whom the domain was created.

Hmmm-

They'd have a difficult time 'claim'ing anything given the products and images being sold there.

In the spirit of debate, tho, your point does add an extra dimension.

"If you want something you've never had before, you have to do something you've never done before." Debra Medina