12 votes

Fox News: Ron Paul Has No Legal Right to RonPaul.com




Comment viewing options

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

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...

OK

If they are true supporters of Ron Paul, they should sell the site to Paul for a reasonable amount that compensates for their time and energy. If they are just trying to get as much money as they can out of it, they turn themselves into simple profiteers rather than actual supporters, and their "disclaimer" is nothing but hot air.

_________________________________

Freedom - Peace - Prosperity

You're mixing two different

You're mixing two different issues. One is the claim that they intentionally deceived supporters to profit from incoming traffic. Clearly that's not the case. In fact, it's the opposite: they helped Ron Paul Inc profit from their traffic.

The other is the profit motive. Just because you're a supporter, doesn't necessitate signing over your last will and testament or, you're not a real supporter. You can still profit from market opportunities and support Ron Paul. They're not mutually exclusive.

They're sitting on a $250k valuation. They put time, effort and creativity in to pushing traffic to Ron Paul's official sites. Five years / 250,000 - taxes / owners is a minimal sum.

If people are so high and holy in their support of Ron Paul, let them mortgage their homes to pay for it. Why demand other people forfeit their property?

What have some of you been listening to for the last four years?

Huh?

Where did I "claim that they intentionally deceived supporters to profit from incoming traffic"? You made that up out of thin air.

My claim is that if they are attempting to profit off the career, image and likness of Ron Paul without his express permission, that is wrong.

Simple as that.

Is their site popularity based on anything other than Paul's career/image/likeness?

_________________________________

Freedom - Peace - Prosperity

I'm referring to the Claim.

I'm referring to the Claim. Part of Ron Paul's case against them, he claims, is that the registrants intentionally deceived people into thinking RonPaul.com is Ron Paul owned. It's a lie, as they don't do that.

They didn't try to profit off him. They purchased the site in May 2008. Dr. Paul never owned it. It was sold by another guy named Ron Paul who didn't do anything with it. A bunch of Ron Paul supporters bid on it. The guy(s) who owns it now apparently paid $25k for it on Ebay (credit given to the guy below me who found the info). They purchased it so that they could promote the Ron Paul 2008 Campaign and Ron Paul. That's exactly what they've been doing for 5 years, nonstop. Campaigning for Ron Paul. The merchandise came later as something to help them finance their activism while supporting him.

Why didn't he say anything sooner if he wanted it? In fact, why didn't he go to them with an offer or counter-offer before going to the UN? Not cool. Not cool at all.

Just because some company

Just because some company allowed them to register Ron Paul's name online +.com does not mean that they own his name online. Ron Paul owns his name/brand/likeness/trademark both offline as well as online. They took that and tried to sell it to him, something that is already his (his name).

The domain registrant has zero fair use for the domain outside of using it for a fan site. Using the domain to sell it to Ron Paul is NOT fair use.

...

i say Ron pay the $250k,,

seems like a fair price actually to me

Image and Likeness

They should not be able to run a website profiting off Ron Paul's image and likeness. If they remove everything related to Ron Paul, 12 term Congressional member from Texas, then sure, let them keep the domain.

If they want to continue profiting off of someone else's image and likeness, get ready to have that domain name taken by force, because you're infringing on this man's personal and intellectual property.

And intellectual property is in fact "property" when it's acknowledged and recorded. I'm not sure why so many "libertarians" would argue otherwise.

The only intellectual

The only intellectual property you can own is what is in your head, not what is in the heads of others.

Just as Ron owns himself and not the creations of others that have a likeness to him or even are images of him.

As a Von Mises sort of free market capitalist the idea to claim ownership on such IP is well, hypocritical.

It may be legal but that doesn't make it right.

The only way to prove what's

The only way to prove what's in your head, is to record it publicly, right? Just because you said it was in your head, doesn't mean a damn thing. However, if I have a thought and record it publicly before others, that means, according to public record, I (1) had the idea first or (2) had the idea and took the initiative to make it public record. Hence, I declare that idea my intellectual property.

Same applies to a lot of incorporeal property. Just because something is incorporeal doesn't mean it can't be "owned."

They

They should have given it willingly if they love Ron. But he shouldn't be suing them for it, it's unbecoming. God bless him, I hope he leaves it alone and they wake up and give him the domain.

After all this man has done

After all this man has done for our freedoms, have a little common decency and give him the damn domain name. What more can they do with it than the greatest statesman of our time?

My domain name is my name.

If tomorrow someone else named Timothy Ramich (timramich.com) came along and decided that they deserve the name more than I do should the legal system just hand it over to whomever has the better lawyer, most money, or more useful purpose for the domain name? Is nobody allowed to have the same name? Sorry, but it seems like if he's going to sue over a trademark infringement on a name built of some of the two most common names, I'd say he's losing it to old age.

Please come join my forum if you're not a trendy and agree with my points of view.

The issue is not that the

The issue is not that the name is common and another person with the same name as Ron Paul has it. That's what seems to have happened to LisaWheeler, though, with LisaWheeler.com being owned by another individual with the same name.

RonPaul.com is not owned by anyone named Ron Paul. AND they are using it in direct relation to the Ron Paul that we all know, which establishes their use of the domain. They are using his name/brand/likeness/trademark and trying to sell it back to him.

Your domain might be your name, but not if someone who shares your name already has it.

...

Two problems with this

Two problems with this argument:

1) No one on the staff at RonPaul.com is named "Ron Paul"

2) They're using his face and likeness all over that website, and making reference to someone other than anyone on that staff, even if there was a "Ron Paul" on their staff.

This is not just about his name, it's about someone using his name without his authorized consent.

I can start a web site today

I can start a web site today using your name and there's nothing you can do about it, as long as I don't libel you.

You're misunderstanding the

You're misunderstanding the root issue here.

The problem is NOT that they ran a fan site about Ron Paul.

The issue is that they established a direct connection between the RonPaul.com domain name and Ron Paul then they attempted to sell it to Ron Paul.

You might be able to run a site about someone using their name as the .com, but you cannot then try to sell that domain name to them and have it be considered fair use of their name.

The content on the site is not the issue. It's the fact that they tried to sell RonPaul.com domain name to the famous person, Ron Paul, that the domain name for the fan site is about. That is clear cybersquatting & illegal under law since 1999.

...

I thought they gave a price after he asked for the domain

I don't think it is cyber-squatting unless they pursued him for the payment. Unless they've changed the rules, I believe you can even maintain a website critical of its domain-name subject, as long as the content is primarily aimed at informing visitors about them. You couldn't have RonPaul.com as a dedicated porn-site, or a Pittsburgh Steeler fan-site, but you could have an anti-life neo-con website attacking every aspect of Ron Paul's philosophy and teachings.

I understood they they did not try to sell it to him, but that when his representative sought to gain possession, that they eventually told him what they regarded was its value to them, based on what they would have to do to continue their work under another domain name.

If what you say is correct then their mistake was to be willing to consider allowing him to get the domain name at all. They should have simply said 'No, we want to keep using it ourselves' and nothing else, every time he asked for it until he came up with an offer greater than $250,000. Only in that way could they avoid your definition of cyber-squatting. In effect, you are saying that Ron Paul tricked them into giving him a price so that he could accuse them of cyber-squatting, such chicanery is something I would have hoped was beneath the great man.

Manus
Pro-Life, pro-family, pro-freedom, pro-worker, pro Ron Paul

It clearly says at the top

It clearly says at the top that it's a fan site and at the bottom it says "This website is maintained by independent grassroots supporters. It is not paid for, approved or endorsed by Ron Paul."

Please come join my forum if you're not a trendy and agree with my points of view.

That is irrelevant at this

That is irrelevant at this point.

They established clearly their purpose for registering RonPaul.com was in relation to Ron Paul the world famous politician.

Running a fan site on RonPaul.com probably would have been fine. They should have just continued doing that or shut the fan site down if they tired of it.

But now the issue is that they tried to sell RonPaul.com to Ron Paul after establishing the use of the domain in connection to RP. That is cyber squatting and is illegal. It's not about the content on the website, it is about the domain name itself.

...

If it is not about money,

then it IS about money. Tim had showed us clearly.

That blurb wasn't added until

That blurb wasn't added until August of 2010, up until then it just said "ronpaul.com"

International arbitration is

the proper channel to resolve the dispute. Based on the past experience, many big corporations and newspapers won the ownership of domain that matched their name. Ron Paul is doing the right thing.

RonPaul.com letter was lame. The main argument was that existing links, referenced from within other outlets, would not work if they switch to another domain. Then they offered to sell it for 250K forgetting about the broken links they argued about.

Well if Fox said it, pack 'er up boys, it's all settled

.

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

We have no idea what's really going on.

Someone claimed earlier here that Ron Paul did own the domain name at one time but somehow lost it.

I'm sure there are things going on we have no clue about.

And don't forget - any chance the media gets to further divide and conquer the liberty movement, they'll jump on with glee.

An, if someone is profiteering from using the likeness, name, reputation, writings, speeches, videos etc of a well-known public figure, then it surely can be challenged - at least.

Maybe Dr. Paul is out of place here, but I'd have to know a lot more details, and I for one, always give him the benefit of the doubt.

"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

RonPaul.com has been

RonPaul.com has been continually registered since 22-NOV-2000 as stated on the domain registration info. The domain was not registered by the current registrant due to Campaign For Liberty allowing it to lapse.

The domain name was sold in January 2008 on eBay for $25,000. Here is a forum thread discussing the sale back then: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?92905-RonPaul-co...!

Prior to that sale on eBay the domain was owned by another person named Ron Paul who had an agent handle the sale.

...

If Paul has no case then what is ronpaul.com worried about?

You all that say Paul has no right, why not let the arbitration sort it out? IF this Tim guy from Australia is the legal owner of the site, then what's he so worried about? Wouldn't he just easily win his case?

Or is it that he's trying to be disingenuous about the whole UN thing to rile up and spread division amongst the liberty people on the HOPES that Paul will chicken out and give up the fight? Because, if this is an open and shut case where Ron Paul is doomed to lose, why all the belly aching from the dot com?

Answer me this, all the

Answer me this, all the supporters of RonPaul.com who thinks Paul doesn't have a case.

If I made a KKK website using your full name and picture promoting racism and other vile stuff. Would you still say I have a right to do that under "private property"?

If you disagree with me on anything you are not a real libertarian...

You're on the right

You're on the right track.

The issue isn't whether someone can use a famous person's name .com for a fan site. Generally that is protected.

However, running a fan site using a famous person's .com domain does not mean they then have a loophole to get around cyber squatting & trademark law.

Trying to sell the domain name to Ron Paul is where they went wrong. Running a fan site was fine.

Ron Paul owns his name/brand/likeness/trademark whether offline or online, however the registrant of RonPaul.com somehow believes they have some sort of ownership over RP's name.

...

Absolutely agree 10000% and

Absolutely agree 10000% and already pointed out the fan site vs. non-fan site in previous posts.

If you disagree with me on anything you are not a real libertarian...