Home » Forums » Daily Paul Liberty Forum
42 votes

Ron Paul vs. RonPaul.com

Submitted by P. Nicholson on Fri, 02/08/2013 - 20:30
in

http://www.ronpaul.com/2013-02-08/ron-paul-vs-ronpaul-com/

Your thoughts?


Like this article? Get DP delivered to your inbox daily. Subscribe here:

E-mail address:  

»

Comment viewing options

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

LOL. I was only waiting for you popping up on that one. :)

Submitted by Cyril on Fri, 02/08/2013 - 21:38.

LOL. I was only waiting for you popping up on that one. :)

—

My name's pronounced like "see real". Its root is "Lord".

"The demand of a great people is always at the scale of its most serious misfortunes." --De Gaulle

http://Laissez-Faire.Me/Liberty

Thanks. All I can do is laugh at this latest 'controversy'

Submitted by chris cudnoski on Fri, 02/08/2013 - 22:44.

kind of much ado about nothing, don't you think? I mean, by now if people interested in hearing what the Doctor thinks straight from his own mouth, who don't know how to use search engines, think that a website called ronpaul.com is somehow the official voice, well, in the words of another famous doctor:
"I'm afraid there is no hope for you. Can I have your stuff?"
Put another way, people are really making melanomas out of molehills with this.

—

The Under-Lying Truth
Anti-Panda Propaganda Systems
--------------
Ron Paul: "If you ever can bring about revolutionary changes two things would be required: young people... and music."

Cyril's picture

Well, yes and no...

Submitted by Cyril on Fri, 02/08/2013 - 23:00.

Well, yes and no...

Yes, it's "only" about a domain name, after all...

But also, no : albeit only a domain name, it's a bit harsh to claim its release back to the homonym person to be worth 250 grands. Take or leave. Pretty harsh.

$250,000 : how many FULL websites could others build and maintain for a year with that? How many more brochures could be printed? How many more speeches could he give here and there?

I question the value that was fixed for that (domain names only): much exaggerated, IMO.

I don't think it's anywhere close to be reasonable.

—

My name's pronounced like "see real". Its root is "Lord".

"The demand of a great people is always at the scale of its most serious misfortunes." --De Gaulle

http://Laissez-Faire.Me/Liberty

To be clear - it's not the website deal being blown out

Submitted by chris cudnoski on Fri, 02/08/2013 - 23:44.

of proportion. It's the reaction to it.

It's just business but some are making it personal? No, something other than that.

Maybe it's an iron deficiency, or the lack of good movies coming out this time of year.

On the plus side I can't wait to see what the big next big big thing will be tomorrow. Viva la Daily Paul!

—

The Under-Lying Truth
Anti-Panda Propaganda Systems
--------------
Ron Paul: "If you ever can bring about revolutionary changes two things would be required: young people... and music."

Cyril's picture

I think you're right.

Submitted by Cyril on Fri, 02/08/2013 - 23:57.

I think you're right. We have way too many distracting topics to pick from.

I'm usually more interested in pointing out to everywhere Ron Paul is/was right... on our society as a whole. Or who are the traitors we ought to keep denouncing, if only for future records.

Not quite the same stakes, time-and-space-wise...

—

My name's pronounced like "see real". Its root is "Lord".

"The demand of a great people is always at the scale of its most serious misfortunes." --De Gaulle

http://Laissez-Faire.Me/Liberty

Deceit on Alex Jones?

Submitted by C-Ledge on Fri, 02/08/2013 - 21:14.

So, I can see both sides of this argument. I really can.

But I just started wondering about something that no one's brought up yet. What was up with the Alex Jones interview that started this whole thing?

It seems pretty deceitful for Ron Paul to say "Unfortunately, I didn't have ronpaul.com, so I'm gonna have to have ronpaulshomepage.com," as though he's totally resigned to not getting it it, and then start this big legal fight. It's almost as if he had hoped that bringing up ronpaul.com would start a big pity party for him and get him the domain for free, but when it didn't happen, he decided to fight.

It's not exactly lying, but it seems a little shady. It's just not the straight-shooting Ron Paul that I've grown to love.

"big legal fight"...

Submitted by weebles on Sat, 02/09/2013 - 02:34.

This is not a "big legal fight".

When you register a domain name you agree to ICANN's registration policies. What is being initiated is a dispute resolution. NOT a "big legal fight". Both sides of the issue will file their comments and the WIPO will make a decision on the policy dispute. They will either award Ron the domain names or they won't.

There is no "legal" challenge here. The ONLY issue is if the actions of the respondents were against ICANN policy. It is an internal policy dispute resolution. No damages can be awarded to Ron Paul. It is not a court proceeding of any kind.

—

.
~wobbles but doesn't fall down~

why the hell would he call it

Submitted by LunaTech on Fri, 02/08/2013 - 22:02.

why the hell would he call it ronpaulshomepage thats such a stupid name in the first place. you know?

i was going to mention that interview earlier

Submitted by freethink2012 on Fri, 02/08/2013 - 21:40.

but decided against it, imho Ron has little to do with the management of his twitter, facebook, websites. It's not Ron demanding ronpaul.com is given to him.

I feel exactly the same way.

Submitted by C-Ledge on Fri, 02/08/2013 - 22:56.

I feel exactly the same way. I'm just disappointed that the real Ron won't stand up.

The current domain holder is

Submitted by Crystallas on Fri, 02/08/2013 - 21:07.

The current domain holder is playing the victim card. In fact, they are the beneficiary of Ron Paul. $250k my ass. If the domain was TheRonPaulStore.blah or anything else, the site itself would be worth far less, maybe nothing.

This is domain extortion on the current owners part. Ron could be like most jerks, and sue for a share of profits by using his name, but he is only getting an arbitration. The current owner should be happy to have made off like a bandit and transfer the site peacefully, or ask for the same value that he/she paid for the domain.

Remember, Ron isn't going after the site, just the domain. They are free to transfer it to whatever domain AFAICT.

Some perspective

Submitted by brycesteinhoff on Fri, 02/08/2013 - 20:45.

On the one hand, I don't think it follows very well with free market perspective to try to "forcefully" take the domain from the current owners. It was peacefully acquired by them and they seem to be the rightful owners of that property. After all, they didn't steal it from RP and he, presumably, had an equal chance of securing it and didn't.

However, from what I'm reading when you register a domain, in accordance with ICANN policies, you warrant that you're not infringing on the rights of a third party and also agree to arbitration if a third party submits a claim. This arbitration process is outlined in what's called the Uniform Domain-Name Dispute-Resolution Policy, or UDRP, and includes certain criteria such as trademark infringement and "bad faith", both of which RP seems to be focusing on in his UDRP complaint. The WIPO, a UN agency, is one of several organizations authorized by ICANN to offer this arbitration service for a fee. The UN itself doesn't have any authority over the matter - RP knows this and that's not part of the issue.

I'm also told by a friend who I trust that the actual owners of the domain are outside the US - I'm not 100% positive if this is true or not, but if it is it makes more sense why RP's lawyers opted to use the UN-connected arbitration service and not one of their other options.

So, on one hand I can see the argument that he's trying to circumvent private property rights. On the other, though, it doesn't seem like any of this is government-connected (yet, at least), but is founded on the voluntary agreement to arbitration the domain owners signed.

I'm sure more details will come to light and make this much easier to interpret.

"Ron Paul is the owner of RON PAUL U.S. trademark...

Submitted by manniman on Fri, 02/08/2013 - 20:42.

"Ron Paul is the owner of RON PAUL U.S. trademark. Ron Paul has acquired rights in the mark by virtue of it’s use within the United States, including a large volume of sales of Dr. Paul’s books. The RON PAUL mark has achieved a secondary meaning associated with Ron Paul sufficient to establish common law trademark rights. RON PAUL has long been associated with Dr. Paul’s books, articles, public appearances, and political commentary."

On the 7th page of Ron Paul's complaint. The fun part begins on the 7th page:

http://www.ronpaul.com/images/Complaint.pdf

Obvious future result is obvious...

—

"If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animated contest of freedom — go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, an

Cyril's picture

Fun? I suppose you used sarcasm...

Submitted by Cyril on Fri, 02/08/2013 - 20:48.

Fun? I suppose you used sarcasm...

Instead, it's rather sad to have Dr. Ron Paul and his closest folks go thru this, IMO.

—

My name's pronounced like "see real". Its root is "Lord".

"The demand of a great people is always at the scale of its most serious misfortunes." --De Gaulle

http://Laissez-Faire.Me/Liberty

I personally don't think

Submitted by manniman on Fri, 02/08/2013 - 20:54.

the owner of ronpaul.com was a supporter. He was cyber squatting IMO: if he was a supporter and "held on to the domain so that the enemy wouldn't have it", he would have accepted Ron Paul's more than generous offer (50k I think).

Now it's in arbitration and he'll probably lose.

—

"If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animated contest of freedom — go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, an

That domain is priceless.

Submitted by Synchronicity on Fri, 02/08/2013 - 20:12.

I don't blame the owners. They're not being stupid with it.

That domain may hold historical, business, and/or sentimental value for the owners; the owners have a right to put forth whatever reserve price they want.

It's not Ron Paul's domain; it's a shame that it's not, but it's just not. And, despite the fact he doesn't own that domain, I believe Ron Paul can survive without it.

Now, if Ron Paul goes to war against the owners of the domain, it will be devastating for Ron Paul, because it will make him look like a hypocrite and a bully.

They're stupid for claiming

Submitted by _DoMiNo_ on Fri, 02/08/2013 - 20:37.

They're stupid for claiming to have bought the domain only to keep the "enemy" from buying it, and then turning around and trying to squeeze $250,000.00 from Ron Paul for it.

If you check their facebook page you can see how unpopular they just instantly became. Any profits they were making off the website is about to plummet. So in that sense, yes, it was extremely stupid.

And Ron Paul isn't taking RonPaul.com to court anyways, he's going to arbitration.

imho they made out like they were

Submitted by freethink2012 on Fri, 02/08/2013 - 20:16.

just minding it for him and then when he wanted it they suggested he paid them hundreds of thousands. Guardians guard things until the rightful owners arrive. They don't then charge the rightful owners hundreds of thousands of dollars. They can't have it both ways.

The present owners _CAN_ have it both ways.

Submitted by Synchronicity on Fri, 02/08/2013 - 22:53.

If there is no contract that says otherwise, the present owners can say anything they like or appear anyway they like.

The owners may now want truckloads of money for something they KNOW is valuable, but I don't believe that that makes them enemies, I think it makes them business savvy.

The way I see it, we and Ron Paul should just look on the bright side: we should be happy Eric Dondero doesn't own it; the present owners didn't actually act like enemies, but they maintained a strong pro Ron Paul website, and they helped Ron Paul raise millions.

Really, Ron Paul should appreciate the bright side, greatly, because a similar thing happened to Dennis Kucinich, and Kucinich wasn't so lucky: the owner of Kucinich.com hated Kucinich and mocked Kucinich for every little thing he did. (In fact, I just check Kucinich.com a second ago, and it is still a site that mocks Kucinich; It's much more mild than it was before, much less comical and more pathetic content-wise, but it's still anti-Kucinich.)

In a free market,

Submitted by Ozark Hillbilly on Sat, 02/09/2013 - 00:14.

these folks can do what ever they want with the domain name.

Also, we can look at their actions and decide for ourselves what we think of them as people.

I've always known that RonPaul.com was NOT an official site and never paid them much attention. Certainly nothing like I do here at DP.

Let the arbitration begin and may the right party win.

Cyril's picture

I am very sorry, but I am just stating my opinion:

Submitted by Cyril on Fri, 02/08/2013 - 20:02.

I am very sorry, but I am just stating my opinion:

this is a rather strange way "to support" Dr. Ron Paul that which consists in owning a domain name bearing his name, putting supportive content (granted), but then asking him for dozens of grands for it.

I just wouldn't do that. It really feels like a questionable support being forced for Dr. Paul's "benefit" ... against compensation (forced as well).

I do not think Dr. Paul has that much money to waste on the mere control of a domain name made after his own name.

What is SO DIFFICULT to support Dr. Ron Paul WITHIN our means?

Has Dr. Ron Paul "forced us" in any way every time we donated for his campaigns?

I don't remember so.

How come we can be so easily indelicate with anyone these days, including with the most outstanding persons to whom we morally and intellectually owe so much, like Dr. Ron Paul?

Didn't he STAND for us all, for this country, FOR FREE, and before practically ANYBODY would even notice or care?

Peace.

—

My name's pronounced like "see real". Its root is "Lord".

"The demand of a great people is always at the scale of its most serious misfortunes." --De Gaulle

http://Laissez-Faire.Me/Liberty

Actually uh, no. We (as in grassroots activists) busted our

Submitted by 1controversialchick on Fri, 02/08/2013 - 21:06.

rear ends raising millions of dollars, printing and spreading literature, and sign waving to push Ron Paul to where he is today. This is like a kick in the gut imo.

—

Christians should not be warmongers! http://www.lewrockwell.com/vance/vance87.html

Cyril's picture

I hear you, but two remarks:

Submitted by Cyril on Fri, 02/08/2013 - 21:27.

I hear you, but two remarks:

1. we are hundreds of thousands jumping on board of supporting a cause voluntarily - spanning years or decades - giving whatever we can afford of our time, efforts, money; never we were forced and we can leave anytime; donating 5 bucks when it's all we can afford is greater than he who gives 50 when he can afford 100, we all know these principles;

2. I would make the same point as Crystallas above

Asking 250K for domain names only is just vastly indelicate, considering what Ron Paul and his folks could do otherwise with the same money to defend and support the ideas (and not just on the WWW, btw), IMO.

—

My name's pronounced like "see real". Its root is "Lord".

"The demand of a great people is always at the scale of its most serious misfortunes." --De Gaulle

http://Laissez-Faire.Me/Liberty

i disagree with your price assessment

Submitted by befree on Sat, 02/09/2013 - 02:40.

the 250k is perfectly reasonable. If those folks were not supporters that site would have been another whitehouse.com

Do you remember whitehouse.com during the Clinton administration? That was pretty funny. You are supposed to protect your trademarks and they were very aware of how it was being used for YEARS.... without trying to stop them?

yep they'd have my sympathy

Submitted by freethink2012 on Fri, 02/08/2013 - 20:13.

had they not offered Ron a 'deal' for hundreds of thousands of dollars and their email list.

Did they even ask any of their subscribers were they willing to be sold? I doubt it.

IngotNews.com's picture

Definitely

Submitted by IngotNews.com on Fri, 02/08/2013 - 20:04.

I would be ecstatic to be able to help Ron Paul in any way, especially one as big as giving him a website that bears his name.

—

www.ingotnews.com

If

Submitted by Verrater on Fri, 02/08/2013 - 19:52.

If Ron came after the DailyPaul or RonPaulForums I wouldn't agree with him. For the same reasons, I side with the owners on this. I don't think they're very good liberty folk for not wanting Ron to have RonPaul.com, but it's theirs to do as they want. There are a lot of people named Ron Paul. If the website name was RonaldErnestPaul.com then he might have a legitimate claim here.

This is just not Ron Paul like. To use an international government agency to strip someone of their property which they have toiled over and invested in? Weird.

—

"Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty."

I would rather #StandWithRand than #SmolderWithHolder - I can't get #DroneInsurance because of my #PreExistingSedition

It's a

Submitted by rpcongress on Fri, 02/08/2013 - 20:26.

variation of the name.

The reason "Ron Paul" is popular is it's how we all got him attention, remember? Blimps, signs, rallys, etc. all with the name RON PAUL.

To use a modification of the name is not the same.

actually it is or can be

Submitted by befree on Sat, 02/09/2013 - 02:49.

harley-davidson went after everyone that had it in their domain name....even modified. (motorcyle relates sites) SecondLife did too. (SL related sites) DailyPaul doesn't have ronpaul in the domain however. But I did notice that Micheal took off Ron Paul's name from the site.

Anyway, from past cases if they used ronpaul.com for something other than about the person in question then they could keep it. At least if I am remembering right and thing haven't changed. Of course maybe they have changed. But usually trademarks only work in the area of your business.

I wonder if he'll sue someone for naming their child after him.

Submitted by 1controversialchick on Fri, 02/08/2013 - 21:07.

hmmm?

—

Christians should not be warmongers! http://www.lewrockwell.com/vance/vance87.html