-35 votes

Ron Paul Calls on United Nations (Which He Doesn’t Believe In) to Confiscate RonPaul.Com?

I really need to hear Dr. Pauls side of this and soon....

Ron Paul Calls on United Nations (Which He Doesn’t Believe In) to Confiscate RonPaul.Com

In 2008, a group of Ron Paul supporters founded RonPaul.com, a Ron Paul fan-site that became one of the leading sources for information about and support for the perennial Libertarian presidential candidate. The creators of the site "put our lives on hold and invested 5 years of hard work into Ron Paul, RonPaul.com and Ron Paul 2012." His presidential campaign fell short, but the enthusiasm lived on as supporters continued to rally around this free enterprise Messiah.

Yesterday morning, Ron Paul repaid their support by filing a complaint with the World Intellectual Property Organization, an agency of Paul's much-reviled United Nations, seeking the expropriation of both RonPaul.com and RonPaul.org from his supporters without any compensation.

The editors of RonPaul.com explained the situation,

read here:
http://gawker.com/5983066/ron-paul-calls-on-united-nations-w...




Comment viewing options

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

The creation date was when

The creation date was when the domain was ORIGINALLY CREATED. That date never changes, even if ownership of the domain changes.

In layman's terms, if John Doe bought a abc.com on 1/1/2001, and sold it to Jane Doe on 1/1/2005, and Jane Doe then sold it to Bob Doe on 1/1/2009 - the creation date would STILL say 1/1/2001. Make sense?

It's really not that hard to comprehend, but then again maybe since I'm a web developer this is elementary to me.

As a web developer you should

As a web developer you should be very familiar with copyright law, yet I've seen no evidence this is the case.

What does copyright law have

What does copyright law have to do with your misunderstanding of the domain creation date? Focus man, focus

If one is in the business of

If one is in the business of building or designing web sites, a thorough exposure to and familiarity with copyright and trademark law is a must, in addition to deep knowledge of the technical details of how domain registration and site maintenance works. Violating copyrights and trademarks will kill your business faster than a targeted drone attack.

Right but, what does that

Right but, once again, what does that have to do with my point???

My point was simply that the domain "creation date" is when the domain was initially registered, not the date when the current owners acquired it... Somehow you randomly switched topics to copyright and trademark laws.

Focus man, focus. Trying to hold an on-topic conversation with you is frustrating

What exactly is the

What exactly is the definition of a "trademark", to your understanding? Because your opinion of what constitutes a trademark is different from the legally binding definition.

Start reading from section VI

Start reading from section VI on down:

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

Because I am me, does not mean I have a trademark.

A trademark derives from business... trade.... commercial activity. You may next say, "But Ron has been the author of his own books for decades!"... Well, an author's name is NOT a trademark.

If you need further proof, feel free to delve deeply into this site: http://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/index.jsp

The point is that in this

The point is that in this case, the trademark happens to be the author's name. Ron Paul's trademark is... Ron Paul.

And if the trademark isn't legally binding then Ron Paul will lose this case (which he won't), so let's wait and see.

You are using the word

You are using the word "trademark" in a very generic sense, as in "Michael Jackson wearing a white glove was his personal trademark". (Actually, Jackson had many legal trademarks so he may not be the best example)...

Misleading title - it is not the UN.

Besides, it is his name, he has more of a right to it than they do.

NOW - if one of the domain's owners is named Ron Paul - then they could lay claim to it.

When you buy a domain name - read the fine print... you're not allowed to claim someone else's name. These are the rules of the Internet, and appealing to a higher authority to uphold them is the way rules get enforced.

All we need is more division within.

The movement is already holding on by a thread and now this happens.

Could be the final nail in the coffin of the liberty movment.

Whose fault it is though is unclear to me.

"We have allowed our nation to be over-taxed, over-regulated, and overrun by bureaucrats. The founders would be ashamed of us for what we are putting up with."
-Ron Paul

The liberty movement has been

The liberty movement has been around a long time and will survive. The mistake is confusing an individual for the movement.

He doesn't have a choice

1) ICANN doesn't handle disputes directly, they have a list of approved dispute providers.

2) There's four providers listed. One for US, one for Czech, one for Asia, and one international (WIPO).

3) Ron Paul is using the international provider since the domain owners live in Panama.

Of course he has a choice. He

Of course he has a choice. He can pay for it.

Then let me rephrase it to

Then let me rephrase it to saying he's making the only smart choice. I wouldn't pay $250,000 for my domain either. Especially when it's currently being illegally used to profit off of my trademark without my consent.

If I were Ron, I would buy up

If I were Ron, I would buy up "RonPaulBook.com", "RonPaulPolitics.com", "RonPaulFoundation.com", and on and on...

He should know his future plans better than anyone.

Nah

Nah, he can just hire lawyers to legally steal them, once he determines which ones are worth stealing, of course.

On A similar issue... tsunamirelief.com

a former classmate of mine, named Josh, bought tsunamirelief.com, the day the tsunami hit SriLanka and surrounding nations. He attempted to sell it for $50,000. The international media caught on to the story and shamed him into selling at a more fair price (actually I think he gave it away)

External pressure is also free market

http://money.cnn.com/2005/01/03/news/newsmakers/tsunamirelief/

This is really the problem

This is really the problem isn't it? Individualism is incompatible and has been made subservient to collectivism.

Could YOU own Walmart.com ? NO.

I was confused on this issue until this analogy occurred to me:

Copyright is about linking NAME with CONTENT.

Walmart - Name.
Cheap Products - Content.

Lord of the Rings - Name
Ancient Earth Plot Line - Content.

No one else can use the WALMART NAME and link it to - cheap products/services. Sam Walton already came up with that idea and his heirs own it.

No one else can use Lord of the Rings - and link it to fictional ancient civilizations plotlines.
But Porn Paradies, do not infringe ON THAT LINK.

Similarly,

Ron Paul - Name
Politics, Economy, etc. - Content.

No one else can use THAT name and draw links to THAT content. Ron Paul already came up with that idea and HE DESERVEDLY OWNS IT.

Case Closed.

So - RonPaul.com wants to be a fan site for Ron Paul - USE A DIFFERENT NAME !
F*ckers.

Cyril's picture

Well, that was my understanding basis, too.

Well, that was my understanding basis, too.

"Cyril" pronounced "see real". I code stuff.

http://Laissez-Faire.Me/Liberty

"To study and not think is a waste. To think and not study is dangerous." -- Confucius

it is possible

It is possible, but unlikely, that walmart would let their domain registration lapse.

If that did occur, though, you're darn-tootin' that one could find themselves owning such a prize.

You can't own Walmart.com

You can't own Walmart.com because Walmart purchased that domain. Also, if someone had acquired it before Walmart, Walmart would have a legitimate claim to it based on existing copyrights that Walmart owns. This is the law and this is what happened when someone bought McDonalds.com. This same rule doesn't apply to human names unless they are used in part of a business, for example "Tommy Hilfiger".

Not taking sides.

Not taking sides on this issue, but to defend RP from the implied hypocrisy in the title -"(Which He Doesn’t Believe In)"-, he also didnt like earmarks, but applied for them and had legit reasons to.

Ron Paul said he likes earmarks

Earmarks are just designating funds for specific spending (e.g. a government project) instead of designating money for broad categories (e.g. Department of Defense). The reason he likes them is that they limit the power of the president to make broad decisions with our tax money and help return the control of the budget to Congress.

I understand...

I understand. I could have worded it better, but Im sure you understood the comparison without the specifics.
"If everyone did what I did there would be no earmarks".

oops

disregard this comment. Can't delete.

I say Ron Paul pay them the money they are looking

for. It's a fair price imo.

They are trying to sell their content, Ron Paul wants his name.

If anything, Ron Paul should get stipend for lending his name to their cause.

Without his name, the site couldn't have created the content.

Free includes debt-free!