-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.

I was being sarcastic.

I was being sarcastic. Sorry...

also... why is the post locked? I can't edit it to make that clear. lol

Would you mind letting us know what the alternatives are?

Would you like us to bend over and not use the Internet just because it is under control? Wouldn't that be nice right?

www.youtube.com/truefictions

I try to change people every day. Do You?

Repeat after me.

I think ICANN.
I think ICANN.

I'm sorry, but just applying some common sense here.

From a libertarian perspective, a person owns their own self, name and likeness. It's available to others for fair use, but attempts to profit on having grabbed a domain first in order to exploit or profit from someone else's name doesn't strike me as "free market" or "libertarian".

You CLAIM it was supporters. They don't appear to be ACTING like supporters.

Words mean NOTHING. ACTIONS mean EVERYTHING.

If they wanted to charge for expenses and trouble, that's one thing. But $250,000? Please. Those aren't actions of supporters. They are actions of ENEMIES.

There is a difference between YOU and a domain name

Are you a web site? A you a web address? No, obviously not. Ron Paul was not born RonPaul.com and does not deserve to own that site any more than someone named "Connie Hilton" deserves to own Hilton.com.

Besides, using the logic you've presented Ron Paul's son, "Ronnie Paul" would have an equal claim (by birth, no less!) to the RonPaul.com site.

.com = commerce

Ron Paul owns the Ron Paul Mark.

His image is being exploited for private gain on that website and Ron Paul has the right to not be happy about it and take it to a court of law.

I find it silly how people who claim to defend the "free market" don't get it.

The people who own that domain are selling Ron Paul (.com = TLD FOR COMMERCE) and Ron Paul is not doing the selling. How hard is it for you folks to digest that?

Can I make a cola drink and start selling it as Coca Cola? Wouldn't that be me committing fraud?

www.youtube.com/truefictions

I try to change people every day. Do You?

Famous persons are entitled

Famous persons are entitled to control their image, however, original works of art, artistic expression and political opinions all fall under free speech.

"Famous persons are entitled

"Famous persons are entitled to control their image,"

care to make the philosophical case for this?

or did you just mean "entitled under current law" in the same way that "poor people are entitled to YOUR money via welfare, under current law"?

Yes, I'm referring to case

Yes, I'm referring to case law. Are you aware of a parallel universe where case law doesn't apply, because its how the world works where I live, sir.

It's like youre intentionally

It's like youre intentionally blurring the line between philosophy and "case law".

I don't think anyone is sayign that Ron paul definitly wont win based on current law. What those of us who are on ronpaul.com's side are sayign is essentially:

"Ron Paul, the man, is in the wrong here. And just as a welfare mom can end up with my property were the case to go to a court, even if Ron Paul can win in a court (which he probably will) this doesn't mean he is in the right."

I have no problem having a discussion on whether or not RP is in the right on this issue (he is not). But to the extent that you're going to pretend that the discussion is about predicting future court outcomes based on case law, you're simply beating up straw men.

I concede all day long that RP might win the case. I still maintain he is morally wrong.

EDIT: unless you're actually making the ludricious claim that ethics and what is "right and wrong" derives from case law?!? I must admit it's an awfully strange (and easily refuted) case for a libertarian/constitutionalist/ron paul fan to make, but to the extent that you're making it, i'd be glad to hear your attempts.

I'll try. Philosophically, I

I'll try. Philosophically, I come down on this issue in favor of personal property rights. I believe Ron is in the wrong.

Im glad you have changed your

Im glad you have changed your mind on this issue.

COMMERCE.

If you are in the market saying you are selling bananas when you are really selling oranges makes you a criminal because you are committing FRAUD.

You can claim you were being artistic and using your free speech all you want for selling those oranges by calling them bananas but any Judge would call bullshit and screw you.

Can I be more clear than that? Do you understand?

www.youtube.com/truefictions

I try to change people every day. Do You?

Actually, no. Your examples

Actually, no. Your examples make no sense. It would be better for you to address the issue directly, using case law.

If RonPaul.com or .org is

opps double posted

If RonPaul.com or .org is

If RonPaul.com or .org is being used to make money off Ron Pauls name, then it is very possable that Dr. Paul might be getting his way. If these sites were not using Dr. Paul in anyway they may stand a chance of keeping those names.

Note the current owners did register those names first and retained them.

So which way you think judge would rule?

My best stab at this is the current owners should sell them for the best they can get right now, or face nothing in compensation, lawyers fees will cost... Something better then nothing right?

And I lost a domain to well I can't say, but it was a space movie, pretty popular.. and I was pissed, this was more than 15 years ago.
I got jack except a lawyer bill to pay...

OK, let's say you owned

OK, let's say you owned Alien.com or StarWars.com or whatever... THOSE are trade names, which are different from a person's name.

Will Ron's lawyer next claim "Ron.com" is Ron's property also? How about RonPaulRonPaul.com? Complete madness.

Incidentally, RonPaulSucks.com is owned by GoDaddy.com.

An Excellent Example

An example of why this should be about the Principles of Liberty and Individualism, rather than 'following' any particular 'man'.

Men are fallible.

Sticking to advocating and practicing purity of principle, ethic and philosophy, not 'following a man', is the only way to go.

In addition, there should never be excuses, rationalizations and/or justification when someone fails to live up to them. To do so merely weakens the foundations of Liberty, which are those very principles.

They are what they are and people do what they do. Call it as it is.

principle

Nicely stated, Lt496.

As a famous person, Ron has

As a famous person, Ron has to deal with the same issues Beyoncé or Mark Zuckerberg or Bill O'Reilly face.

The fact is, as long as there is no direct copyright infringement (for example, the site McDonalds.com was an infringing site and the restaurant chain won the right to that property), Ron is out of luck.

Even web sites like RonPaulIsGreat.com, RonPaulSucks.com or RonEPaul.com are up for grabs. The smart thing is for all known people (and a vast number of people who are not famous or well known), to minimally protect their "brand identity" by buying your name and/or your company's domain name before someone else gets it. The cost is minimal. This is the reasoning also behind the land grab for Facebook names. These things have value.

Ronpaul.com is private

Ronpaul.com is private property. If somebody wants to purchase it, they can at the market rate of $250k.

Why would anybody on this site justify using an international body to confiscate somebody's property?

Cyril's picture

Where is the problem, really? I don't see any.

There is no attempt at a "justification of using an international body to confiscate somebody's property".

if one reads the complaint:

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

1. Ron Paul's folks only want to regain control of a domain name which literally goes after the homonym living person's name

2. the current "owners" of the domain name want $250K for it (see page 8)

3. Ron Paul's folks beg to differ: they had appraised it at $50K tops (also in page 8)

(which, IMO, is already quite a bit of money for MERELY a domain name)

4. hence, the latter are just FOLLOWING the Internet domain name disputes rules and are asking ICANN for arbitration on their case.

I really don't see any problem beyond the plaintiff and defendants disagreement.

Personally, I chose which camp's claim makes the more sense to me.

And whether we like or not how the ICANN is set up doesn't matter: there are rules. If we don't like them, let's try to change them or repeal them. Until then, one has to abide.

Where's Ron Paul's hypocrisy? I see ***NONE*** - see points (1) to (3), above.

This would be AN ENTIRELY different story, from MY point of view, if it were about claims over "DailyPaul.com" for instance - but THIS IS NOT the case.

Just my opinion.

Peace.

"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

Then he should negotiate with

Then he should negotiate with the owners instead of appealing to an international body to intervene on his behalf.

The UN is an international governing body. He's attacked its authority and regulatory powers for decades.

Cyril's picture

No offense intended, but the

No offense intended, but the whole point on regarding the U.N. / ICANN as undesirable governing bodies does not hold water.

When you or I purchase a domain name we have to explicitly acknowledge and submit ourselves to their authority and that ALSO encompasses following their rules in case of disputes.

Don't like it? Then DO NOT purchase a domain name or make sure that NOBODY can ever make a claim against it.

If Ron Paul is in his rights per their rules and arbitration in regard to his claims, he will win, otherwise he will lose.

He may very well lose, btw.

But I find unjust to use this dialectic trick regarding a so called hypocrisy of Ron Paul.

Change or remove the ICANN if we don't like these disputes. Until then, abide and be responsible.

Last remark: I don't think many of us know how the negotiations went, if any. And that's a topic where we'd need to hear from BOTH camps, beyond just the complaint or that blog post.

"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

Ron Paul will lose

Ron Paul will lose regardless: he's tarnishing his brand's credibility. Thousands of us have spent years learning and promoting his message of individual liberty, limited government and free markets. You can try spinning it however you want. The bottom line is this...

RonPaul.com is private property.

Correction

"Ron Paul will lose regardless: he's tarnishing his brand's credibility."

Correction, the owners of ronpaul.com are trying to tarnish his credibility and brand name (hint hint, this is where trademarks come in) by making a big fuzz about the UN thing when they know full well that there's no other avenue to resolve this sort of this dispute in this situation. They are taking advantage of the fact that a lot are misinformed as to the nature of the dispute and to the utility of trademarks in a free market.

But you're right, Ron Paul will lose credibility partly because of his negligence but also because of the bad faith of the current owners of the domain name which btw they will have to sell at a much lower price to Ron Paul on trademark grounds anyway.

"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

Well, yes.

Well, yes. And free markets never excluded courts to resolve disputes.

In fact, courts are necessary, for fair trade and dispute resolution.

We wouldn't want the biggest / most numerous to always win, would we?

As far as domain names go, ICANN is such court. We like it or not.

And that'll be to decide about whom RonPaul.com shall actually belong to, as private property as you say.

See truefictions point above. It does make some sense.

So, anyway, we'll see.

"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

The negotiation failed, there's a $200k difference of opinion

So who should he go to then?
US court?
He can't.
The domain name's owners are foreign.
So just give it up? Because of his political position that the UN shouldn't have any authority, he has to pretend that they don't have any and exist in an imaginary world where they don't?

Renegotiate or buy what's available

Go back and renegotiate repeatedly. If he doesn't want to pay the "market price," then purchase another domain. People do it everyday. It's called the free market. You have winners and losers. It's not the role of government to pick and choose who the winners and losers are.