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.

It plain old doesn't matter.

It plain old doesn't matter. Your namesake is protected in terms of domain rights. If someone used Nathan B.. dot com and profited off of it, I would sue them too. I would also win.

RonPaul.com is in for a rude awakening, as if they want to play tough guys and battle it out in court, they are going to owe Ron Paul for past profits.

The Revolution Continues..

That's not true.

Kucinich.com is evidence of this; Kucinich was never able to shutdown or acquire control of that site.

Ron Paul was a public figure, for decades, so his name is part of the public domain. And, people are free to sell products with a public figure's name on them, even if the product happens to be a website's domain.

Not when you Trademark 'Ron

Not when you Trademark 'Ron Paul'

The Revolution Continues..

Name that website

Name that website DennisKucinich.com and I guarantee you have a different tale on your hands.

The Revolution Continues..

if Ron Paul asks for it? GIVE IT TO HIM!!!

seriously? the site makes claims about 'blood, sweat, and tears' ...

well, if you're so dedicated, give it to him!

even Toy R Us

had the sense to pay the person who registered toysrus.com. Good will goes a long way.

Legally, it is a MUCH

Legally, it is a MUCH different story when you're using an actual person's name.

The Revolution Continues..


i hope ron spanks them EXTRA hard simply for CRYING they way they do.

rons good at giving spankings, ask half of his district!
that would be establishment gop and his deliveries.

"OH NO! He has a SON?" Neoconservatives and Liberals EVERYWHERE!

Rand Paul 2016

This seems fishy to me...

I can't see the good Doctor messing around with something like this. Are there any credible sources proving that anything at all is going on?

Hey extortionist... You're no Ron Paul supporter!

Let's cut through the bulls**t...

Either you want to help the movement per your claim or make $$$ off Ron Paul's identity - It's that simple. And right now you're not helping the liberty movement. You're just some self-serving opportunist.

I for one will steer clear of that domain until I know it's in possession of the man whom it rightfully belongs to and will most benefit the liberty movement going forward.

EDIT: To the down-voters. Explain to me then how his/her actions are helping the liberty movement?

If men are good, you don't need government; if men are evil or ambivalent, you don't dare have one.

Whatever one's view of the law/ethics involved...

...I agree, it's pretty clear that the owners of the site have less than noble motives. But they're not the first people who tried to make money off the liberty movement, and they won't be the last.

"Alas! I believe in the virtue of birds. And it only takes a feather for me to die laughing."

My beef is making money at the expense of the liberty movement

Thanks for the response.

I've no problem with people making money off the liberty movement, as long as they're helping it. I fail to see how extorting money from Ron Paul while denying him an obviously favorable avenue to promote his message is helping. Hence my comment.

If men are good, you don't need government; if men are evil or ambivalent, you don't dare have one.

A better question should be...

If people are making money WHILE propelling the liberty movement, why shouldn't they be allowed to do so?

Propelling the liberty movement while also putting money into the liberty movement, this is what ronpaul.com has been doing.

They advertised moneybombs for Ron Paul; uploaded pro-Paul videos to YouTube; featured countless pro-Paul articles that attracted thousands of readers; they donated money to Ron Paul.

What's more, the website's banner clearly states FAN SITE on it, so they weren't pretending to be Ron Paul's official site.

No question was asked to counter it

You took my statement and turned it into a question. OK, so we agree there's nothing wrong with "making money WHILE propelling the liberty movement". Great!

I think where we're failing to see eye-to-eye is that you're focused on the past and not seeing the present, based on your examples.

Attacking the very person on a website it claims to support by any measure is not fulfilling its stated purpose. Thus our mutually stated conditions are no longer being satisfied.

Regardless, I would hope you and the website owner(s) agree that "propelling the liberty movement" is our primary goal and reason we're all here, and any money making to be had WHILE doing so is an ancillary benefit.

As such I'm afraid you'll have a very hard time convincing me the current domain owner(s) can better promote the message of Ron Paul than Ron Paul himself. Is there some plan to use that quarter-million dollars in a way that further promotes Ron Paul and the liberty movement, better than the good Dr. can accomplish himself?

If so, let us see that plan and I'll be the first one to chip-in for the purchase. There should be no question this movement can and will raise that money to promote our cause as we've done many times in the past. That is, if this is truly indeed what this is all about. Otherwise, this is all just noise that isn't helping the movement.

If men are good, you don't need government; if men are evil or ambivalent, you don't dare have one.


Abandoning free market principles, attacking Ron Paul's fanbase, attacking things that Ron Paul himself had claimed to enjoy/respect -- none of this is "propelling the liberty movement", now.

Keep in mind, Ron Paul or Ron Paul's corner (somebody around Ron Paul, if not Ron Paul himself) brought the war to the owners of the domain. It's not the other way around.

What's more, why should the owners of ronpaul.com be submissive? Nobody knows what the owners' situation is: ronpaul.com may be the owners' only source of income; they might have big bills to pay; they might not even own their houses, whereas Ron Paul is a multi-millionaire and his entire family is set for generations. Asking and expecting the domain holders to just give away something that is rightfully theirs -- a priceless item for free -- that's just asking and expecting too much.

The internet-based grassroots movement helped provide Ron Paul the stage he has today particularly by doing exactly what ronpaul.com did for Ron Paul during the election cycle, so it would be extremely stupid to start a war with his own fans, especially on the web of all places.

I mean, why would he want to attack his own base? You can't deny that it's a two-way street; you can't claim ronpaul.com is doing wrong while ignoring Ron Paul's corner is the one kicking-off the war against his own base, can you?

Do you really believe Ron Paul would be as popular today without his Internet-based base? If Ron Paul really believed the government should steal from people for the sake of Ron Paul, do you believe he would have the stage and the mic that he has today? (I don't think so.)

For the record, I'm not entirely convinced it was Ron Paul's plan to wage war against ronpaul.com, I think it may be some stupid lawyer's idea, probably one of Benton's remainders, but if it was Ron Paul's plan, you gotta know such a move is bad for anybody involved, especially for Ron Paul.

A better question is why are you here?

Ron Paul vs. ronpaul.com is clearly a very important issue for you, having consumed the overwhelming majority of your 10 mos. time here.

You've made your biased opinion against Ron Paul very clear, charging him with "abandoning free market principles, attacking Ron Paul's fanbase, attacking things that Ron Paul himself had claimed to enjoy/respect" and therefore concluding he's "extremely stupid to start a war with his own fans".

Those are your words. You went from defending ronpaul.com on the grounds they're "propelling" (as you put it) the liberty movement. So I point out the fallacy that your own stated condition is no longer being met and your response is to vilify Ron Paul, adding that he started it. Nice!

OK, so why are you still here at the DAILY [RON] PAUL supporter website?

Oh, but no... you'd rather continually talk smack and then try to weasel out by sneaking in a, "I think it may be some stupid lawyer's idea" at the very last sentence.

Pfffft... I thought so.

If men are good, you don't need government; if men are evil or ambivalent, you don't dare have one.

Don't even go there...

Playing the seniority card is weak, and you know it.

I've put in 7-8 undying years for Ron Paul, not exclusively on the Daily Paul, but all over the World Wide Web and beyond.

If you really want some knowledge about me, here is one starting point from which you may begin your studies, page 1 of 22 pages:


Succinctly, I've been responding to your responses. Whether you accept any of my points or not, that's your business.


How did my lovely letter from Carol get dragged into this?!!

I'm a serial entrepreneur and liberty activist from Texas!



their sinking and sinking fast, they will grab anything that looks like a life preserver.
Im talking about the GOP!

"OH NO! He has a SON?" Neoconservatives and Liberals EVERYWHERE!

Rand Paul 2016

Not a simple answer

What we know, and some of my thoughts:
- Ron Paul has trademarked his name
- When you own a trademark, others cannot use that trademark.com for their own profit. You can claim your trademark.com for your own use.
Thet makes sense and keeps people from abusing others' rights.
- Ron Paul and/or his staff were delinquent and let the lease on ronpaul.com lapse.
They screwed up.
- Others grabbed up ronpaul.com and used it for the liberty movement and probably some profit for themselves.
Good for them.
I'd guess that they are not getting rich off of the domain.
- They offered Ron the ronpaul.org domain for free.
That doesn't look like ill-faith to me.
- They said if he wanted ronpaul.com, that would be $250,000O
Ok, that seems quite high to me.
- We don't know what kind of negotiations have taken place.

So here's where I land.
Ron should pay for his mistakes. He screwed up. He should pay them for the domain. Not sure he should pay $250,000. It's not worth that. Ron ended up going to the authorities but since we don't know what negotiations took place, I can't say if that was a good or bad move.

I also have to wonder how much Ron is engaged in all of this. He doesn't understand the internet like his supporters do. Unfortunately, he does not have a record of surrounding himself with completely competent people (like the ones that let the domain names lapse). I wonder if he wanted to get the domain name and he got a lawyer to do that for him, and the lawyer is the one that petitioned the UN. But that is conjecture on my part.

Oh please...the current

Oh please...the current owners want a pity party? If they had any decency, they would willingly turn it over and thank Dr. Paul for allowing them to make lots of money off his name.

Go Dr. Paul!


1) The owners make money by using his name and selling advertising (and maybe merchandise?)

2) They then try and charge him hundreds of thousands to regain possession of the domain with his name on it (??)


There IS no "free market authority managing domain names"

If there were?



I mean .. honestly .. sometimes my brain drops IQ points, in realtime, merely by reading the internet.

Respectfully Disagree...

"There IS no 'free market authority managing domain names."

Well, of course there isn't since they have no place in a free market. The only thing that should regulate the free market is supply v. demand, guided by the choices of informed consumers. I am interested to hear any examples of "free market authority" that you (or we as libertarians) advocate for or that you think actually belong in the FREE market.

If Ron hadn't gone to this agency and it was posted about someone else, I believe this forum would be nothing but comments about how this is just another intrusion into the free market... and it is.

The domain was bought legally, end of story.

How much Ron (and others) want it and are willing to pay for it will determine the price. Price too high? Then don't buy it. It's obviously worth that much to the owner or he would have taken less money for it.

To put my argument in context, I think all trademark and intellectual property laws are unethical and immoral. If I agreed with those ideas I'd probably come to the same conclusion as you. As I can see, the owners of the domain never claimed to be Ron Paul or represent themselves as Ron Paul. To me, that would be the only legitimate reason for anyone to intervene with the threat of violence.

NOTE: I am not advocating violence in any way. The content of the post is for intellectual, theoretical, and philosophical discussion. FEDS, please don't come to my house.

nice post

That about sums it up

Isn't ronpaul.com registered from Australia?

Seriously, have a look. The people running ronpaul.com are a bunch of Australian domain squatters that have enriched themselves through the use of Dr. Paul's name, and now refuse to relinquish it to him.

What possible reason could a bunch of Australians have to hold the domain name of a popular US politician? Obvious; profit.

The company

they register through is in Australia. Mine is in the Virgin Islands.

I wouldn't be surprised.

But that would make me sorely disappointed to hear if true.

[Source/link please?]

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

It's his name, he's

It's his name, he owns the trademark by common law and they offered to sell it to him for an exorbitant amount which triggers the bad faith clause.

The domain only has value because of Ron's hard work.

It'd be different if it was another "Ron Paul" using the domain for their own company/service.

Check out http://ronpaulforums.com for activism and news.

From what I've heard the check's in the mail.


Defeat the panda-industrial complex

I am dusk icon. anagram me.

Haha I love it

Haha I love it