12 votes

Fox News: Ron Paul Has No Legal Right to 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.

Ron Paul

Has more money than he will ever spend.From his gold and silver investment and sales of books.All he would have to do is hold seminars anywhere in this world .People would come.Why do people call Fox" News".They are like old underwear.The elastic band wore out years ago. Toss it out.

Money talks and dogs bark

I have a hard time

believing this is even an iussue and that Ron Paul even cares about it.

Here: RonErnestPaul.com

More exact.

The law cannot make a wicked person virtuous…God’s grace alone can accomplish such a thing.
Ron Paul - The Revolution

Setting a good example is a far better way to spread ideals than through force of arms. Ron Paul

Allegedly, when Aristotle's

Allegedly, when Aristotle's loyalty to his former teacher Plato was questioned on account of his going against several of his teacher's doctrines, he responded: "I love Plato. But I love the truth more."

Well, I love Ron Paul. But I love property rights more.

If story is correct...it's wrong

The bottom line for me is that the current owners of RonPaul.com have been in business for going on five years now. It is not right for Ron Paul to be threatening them with legal action to forcibly remove the domain name from them at this late date. If what is being reported about this situation is correct and complete I am very disappointed with Ron Paul.

"What I want most from the government is to be left alone." GWT

http://www.meetup.com/RIRonPaul2012/

Not only that...

...it's time for a counter-suit. How much damage is RP's frivolous attack causing their legitimate ronpaul.com business?

These people have ZERO clue.

These people have ZERO clue. NO CLUE whatsoever.

Lisa Wheeler was unable to get LisaWheeler.com because another person with the exact same name, another Lisa Wheeler, was already using the domain for her dance & fitness consultant business.

RonPaul.com is absolutely NOT a case of another person who has the same name as Ron Paul, so Lisa Wheeler's argument is INVALID. There is NO COMPARISON.

It is also NOT an issue of some business that coincidentally shares Ron Paul's name operating from the .com.

RonPaul.com is indisputably being used in relation to Ron Paul the famous politician that we all know. The current registrant of that domain cannot undo his choice of associating RonPaul.com to Ron Paul the politician.

If the domain registrant wanted to make big money by selling a presidential candidate's name + .com he should have NEVER associated the domain to the politician AND he should have taken other steps to strengthen his position as registrant. This domain registrant has done neither and actually has weakened his case to keep the domain by associating it to Ron Paul then trying to sell it to him.

Ron Paul owns his name/brand/likeness/trademark offline as well as online. That's what this is about. It has nothing to do with one person named Ron Paul trying to take the domain name owned by another Ron Paul as what appears to have been the case with Lisa Wheeler.

...

If Ron Paul owned his name,

If Ron Paul owned his name, he would be able to sue anyone else named Ron Paul.

If Ron Paul owned his likeness, he would be able to sue anyone for simply picturing him in their mind.

If Ron Paul owned his "brand", whatever that means, he would be able to sue anyone who imitated his message/delivery/whatever constitutes "brand".

These characteristics of the fellow we call "Ron Paul" are NOT property. They are concepts. Ideas. They cannot be "owned".

FOX News isn't qualified to make such a determination

It will be decided by contractual dispute arbitration which the domain owners agreed to when they purchased the domain name.

WTF..DR. PAUL deserves better

Just so I get this straight, Ron Paul runs for office 3 times, sacrifices his life for our movement, creates all of this and some DOUCHE_BAGS are holding his name over his head...REALLY??

After everything!!!

Give him his name back regardless of who is right or wrong

He asked for NOTHING from us

WTF

"No army can stop an idea whose time has come"

If you can replace Ron Paul

If you can replace Ron Paul with absolutely any other person in the world and expect the same rules to apply, then the rules are correct. If "Joe Smith" can make a claim against anyone holding a domain that matches his name and win, then you are right. Otherwise, you're dead wrong.

If I have a domain and I have

If I have a domain and I have Joe Smith's photo on the front page. I sell Joe Smith mugs, shirts, and everything else. I also sign a contract that binds me not to sell the name for more than the cost and break it... hmmmm yes that can apply to anyone...

You said: "I also sign a

You said: "I also sign a contract that binds me not to sell the name for more than the cost and break it..."

How exactly are you privy to this information?

I am astonished at the blind fanboyism

Maybe it's a little provocative and assumptive to call it fanboyism, but I can't figure out what else it could be.

Ron Paul DOES NOT have a right to RonPaul.com. State whatever laws and cases you want, but we all know that "legal" =/= "right".

To you claiming that this is a question of Property Rights: YOU ARE RIGHT.

However, Ron Paul does not *OWN* his name. His name is a concept, not a piece of property. Several other humans (as well as my pet betta) are also called "Ron Paul". It means nothing. Why should one particular Ron Paul be more entitled to a domain name more than any other Ron Paul? Or should one even need to be named Ron Paul?

Many of you are arguing that "Ron Paul" is a brand. So what? What if I had a business named "Ron Paul"? What if I wrote a book titled "Ron Paul," which had nothing to do with the politician? Or better yet, what if the book was titled "R On Paul," the thrilling tale of Rebecca (nicknamed "R") and her sexcapades with a time-traveling leprechaun named "Paul"? Do I have a right to www.ROnPaul.com? No.

Domain names ARE property. Unlike the concept "Ron Paul" (or any other name), ronpaul.com is a unique location on the DNS. Thus, it is exactly like a plot of land and is subject to be claimed. The current owner claimed it legitimately.

No person with a firm understanding of propert rights can ethically practice eminent domain on someone else's duly-claimed property.

"Ron Paul" is just a name... it is intellectual property. To use government to enforce intellectual property "rights" flies in the face of REAL property rights. You can argue that IP is in the Constitution, but I repeat: "legal" =/= "right"... even when it comes to the Constitution.

Some food for thought: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D6_ZqPcNemI

So I can take your name....

So I can take your name.... Purchase it in domain... Use your photo and promote hmmm let's say molestation, beasteality or something to the effect.... You have no rights? You just have to live with it? In fact I can make you my poster child for my screen print.... You still have no say?

Yep.

Freedom of Speech, brotha. That includes defamation. It wouldn't make you ethically right, but I have no ultimate power over how other people perceive me.

Wrong... part of the contract

Wrong... part of the contract for a domain lease covers this.

You're stuck

You're stuck in the paradigm of LEGAL instead of what is RIGHT.

Certainly, "legally" Ron Paul can petition ICANN (and whatever partner organizations) to sieze the domain from the current registrants as part of the private agreement made between those two parties. That's not what I'm talking about.

I'm talking about natural rights.

Ron Paul has no natural right (or extension thereof) to the domain ronpaul.com

Yes you should be able to create a website with a domain of my name, and put whatever you'd like on it. I am not the ultimate master of other people's perceptions of me. I am free to convince them I am one way, and you are free to convince them I am something else entirely.

Creating such a site wouldn't make you a good person, but it's certainly within your (natural) right.

I disagree..... it isn't

I disagree..... it isn't morally right to start a site in Ron Paul's name..... Make a pile of money off Ron's supporters and never donate a dime to Ron....

Is it becasue there is

1) Is it becasue there is initiation of aggression and therefore it isnt morally right?

(If this is the case please elaborate the actual initiation of aggression, as I am in agreement with you that only initiations of aggression are immoral, but fail to see how this is an instance of an initiation of aggression.)

2) Or is there no initiation of agression yet you still maintain that it was still not morally right for reasons besides initiating aggression?

(If this is the case please elabroate on your definition of morality that defines actions as being immoral that don't involve initiations of aggression, as I don't know that I agree that such a thing is possible.)

You're using a strawman

You're using a strawman argument. Nothing illegal or defamatory was featured on RonPaul.com.

It doesn't matter... They

It doesn't matter... They never gave a dime to Ron Paul yet used his image and fame to make a bundle for themselves...

As a public servant, that's

As a public servant, that's the tradeoff. As long as the famous person isn't being libeled (and when they are the subject of satire, there is even more leeway as far as the insults go), free speech trumps all.

downvote for support of

downvote for support of libel.

you don't own others minds.

Not Supporters? Proof they were hardcore supporters from 2008

Anybody who says there was no disclaimer on the grassroots site, is deceiving you:

This is the footer from May 2008:

The RonPaul.com website is maintained by grassroots supporters. It is not paid for, approved, endorsed or reviewed by Ron Paul & Campaign.

Copyright © 2008 Ron Paul .com. Powered by WordPress.

And in the sidebar:

Disclaimer
The RonPaul.com website is maintained by independent grassroots supporters of Ron Paul. Neither this website nor the articles, posts, videos or photos appearing on it are paid for, approved, endorsed or reviewed by Ron Paul or his Campaign. For Ron Paul's official website, go to RonPaul2008.com

So they pushed traffic to Ron Paul's official sites, i.e., C4L and RonPaul2008.com and this is how he repays them.

See the direct link, here:
http://web.archive.org/web/20080519212829/http://www.ronpaul...

Just because they ran a fan

Just because they ran a fan site on RonPaul.com does not automatically mean they own the name/brand/likeness/trademark of Ron Paul online.

They should have continued running the fan site. Offering to sell the domain to RP for $800k then $250k is where they messed up.

They changed their status from fan site operator into cyber squatter.

Running a fan site does not give the fan site operator ownership of the famous person's name online. Running a fan site is generally protected as fair use. Trying to sell a famous person the .com version of their name is not fair use, fan site operator or not.

What they needed to do was choose one or the other, but not both. However, they wanted both and this is the result.

...

Those Fox News chicks didn't do the research

Take 10 minutes and educate yourself. Google "cybersquatting case law", "UDRP", "WIPO". Once you understand the concepts, you will understand that RonPaul.com is arguably in violation of cybersquatting law, and that Ron Paul is using the most common arbitrator to settle this.

You are absolutely

You are absolutely correct.

Lisa Wheeler's example is in no way comparable. LisaWheeler.com was already owned by another individual named Lisa Wheeler when she tried to get it.

RonPaul.com is not owned by another person named Ron Paul bus is in fact being used directly in relation to the famous Ron Paul that we all know. Then they tried to sell it to him... that's where they messed up.

...

so now that the un claim has been settled IE this

http://www.dailypaul.com/274260/ron-paul-has-not-gone-to-the...

people are moving onto other things to troll about, always surprising those with very little reputation to lose just trample their own dead credibility corpses like nothing, onward to the next defamation

Where There Is A Will, There Is A Way: R[3]VOLUTION!

Where There Is A Will, There Is A Way: R[3]VOLUTION!

Hello, Everyone.

How very funny! The "trolls" are still here! I got "one minus" vote in about 5 minutes (...as if I cared or it mattered).

LOOK AT THE VIDEO BELOW :)

I am back. Sorry (((Laughs!!!))). After 5 years of so much (2007 - 2012) I had to rest a little. All of January (...and still helping people everywhere).

Well: I don't know what to say here. But I will say this:

"They" have tried everything to make Ron Paul's and Our Life difficult, but:

BY WITHDRAWING OUR SUPPORT TO THE G.O.P FOR THE WAY THEY TREATED RON PAUL, US AND OUR DELEGATES, THE REPUBLICAN PARTY LOST!

How much was their "phoney" campaign? 1 Billion Dollars?

Everyone have a beer now. Cheers :)

WHOMEVER IS TRYING TO BASICALLY PROFIT FROM HIS NAME:

DO NOT GIVE THEM WHAT THEY WANT.

No Money Bomb Here.

AND TO THOSE WHO SO WISH THE R[3]VOLUTION WILL GO AWAY:

SORRY.

WE ARE WORLDWIDE. WE ARE NOT GOING AWAY. EVER.

R[3]VOLUTION!

Copy / Paste / Send on ALL NETWORKS:

E-Mail, Text, Facebook, Tweeter, MYSPACE: http://youtu.be/skOkKX7KchE

www.davidicke.com

Wisdom Strategies

Plain and simple

It is wrong to profit off another individual without their express consent.

The entire site is based on Ron Paul's career, image and likeness. It is one thing to use a living person's career, image and likeness in your website (or other materials) as a fan or in an educational manner. But if you are attempting to PROFIT solely off another man's career, image and likeness, without their permission, that is plain wrong.

Whoever owns the domain should do the decent thing and sell the site to Dr. Paul for a very reasonable amount, correlating to the fair value of the time that was put in.

_________________________________

Freedom - Peace - Prosperity