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.

Did they try to sell him the domain name?

Or did they merely give a price when Ron Paul asked them for it?
That should make a difference.

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

yes, you do.You don't have

yes, you do.

You don't have the right to the contents of another person's head and any claims to a right to ones "reputation" are just that.

Not trying to appeal to authority, but here's Mr. Libertarian on the topic. Evaluate his arguments on your own.

http://mises.org/rothbard/ethics/sixteen.asp

Legally you are wrong. You

Legally you are wrong. You CANNOT use my picture or anyone else's picture to promote a product. So on the protection of likeness you would lose. On the name you probably also lose. Unless you maybe stated that this is NOT that person's website, but a fan website which a most do.

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

oh "legally"?So then youre

oh "legally"?

So then youre in favor of welfare, right?

Cause "legally" that single mom has a "legal right" to some of your paycheck.

I thought we were talking whether or not RP is right or wrong, not simply predicting whether he will win a legal case.

Mah bad.

My Prediction: he will win the case.

Additional Prediction: Poor people in some of the states that decriminialized pot will be scucessful in lobbying the government to make it their "legal right" to pot and that if they can't afford it, someone else is buying it for them.

EDIT: Are you familar with the concept of someone disagreeing with current law and making the argument that: "Current law is wrong!"?

It seems your counterargument to this point is: "But...but...but... it's current law".

"Yea, no shit. it's current law and it's wrong. If it WERENT current law and just some dudes bad idea that had no force behind it, i wouldn't really care to correct it, now would i?"

Anyone interesting in having the ethical discussion now?

Legally I am right, but also

Legally I am right, but also morally. I already explained myself. You don't have to agree. If you believe you can use my name as a domain site, my picture and do with it whatever you want under my name and likeness, then I don't have anything else to say.

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

you never actually made any

you never actually made any moral argument. All you did is present some hypothetical re: the KKK that I responded to.

Why do you feel that someone has a right to his reputation?

Maybe you don't understand.

Maybe you don't understand. Moral and legal is the same thing. Think about that before you answer.

You have a right to a TRUTHFUL reputation.

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

"Moral and legal is the same

"Moral and legal is the same thing. "

QFT

This is honestly one of the dumbest things ive ever read on here.

By that statement youve essentially said that you think drug use is immoral, that slavery in the 1800s WAS moral, and only became immoral after the law changed, that not paying income tax is immoral, etc.

wow.

Do you even liberty?

Slandering a normal citizen

Slandering a normal citizen is completely different than having a domain registered to a site honoring a PUBLIC SERVANT. Anyone with a brain could do a whois on that domain and see that it's not owned by the person you claim. You would be committing fraud in the first place, so you would be subject to the arm of justice. This is about a domain name, not site content. First come, first serve. It's how it's always worked and how it always should. You snooze, you lose.

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

Who is talking about

Who is talking about Slandering? Second, so you don't mind if I put a doman up with your full name and picture for a hard core gay porn dating site?

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

"dont mind" is vague. most

"dont mind" is vague. most people would "mind" if you did that.

the issue isn't abotu what current law says.

nor is the issue about what people "mind".

the issue is about what you have an ethical right to do, leaving me no moral right to use force to prevent you from doing so.

(eg: i'd "mind" if you burnt a cross across from my house. And in some towns it might actually be illegal. However this doesn't change that your burning a cross solely on your property is your moral right. Whether it's a "good idea" to exercise it is not the discussion. Nor is it about whether or not local governments have usurped this right.)

Honoring a public servant

Honoring a public servant

vs

Profiting off of his name and image

... are two completely different things. And you can't say they weren't in it for the money, especially when they initially tried to squeeze $800,000 out of Ron Paul for the domain name.

Web content is key

As I understand it, going from 10 year old memory, (the rules may have changed), as long as the site's content is related to the title then the ownership is legitimate. I've a vague recollection of a politician losing out in an attempt to close a website with his name that was attacking him and his record, exposing how he voted on issues, who was funding and unflattering issues in his past.
Mr politician couldn't get the domain name because the content, though unflattering was all about him. So on this principle, if RonPaul.com was a progressive, anti-life or neo-con site attacking Ron Paul and his record, that would be legitimate as long as was Ron Paul that was the focus of attack.

In the case of ronpaul.com it has been said that the original owner was an individual also named Ron Paul. Should he refused the opportunity to get the full potential value for the sale of his property? Should his customers be denied ownership of property they had paid for in good faith?

Is this a case of Ron Paul asking government to interfere with and impede the market?

If this was a blackmail style porn site, or a cyber-squatter Ron Paul would have a much stronger case. If Ron Paul wins, what legitimate right does Michael have do the ownership of this site? After all it is clearly fashioned around the name and reputation of Ron Paul!

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

Michael wouldn't have

Michael wouldn't have anything to worry about, since "Daily Paul" is not the Ron Paul trademark.

Ron Paul is making the case that "Ron Paul" is his trademark.

The content is not key, and is actually irrelevant. They are going after the domain name, not the website.

Yeah

Yeah

I noticed

I noticed that more youtube videos are popping up attacking Ron Paul, but there is one in particular that dormouse told me he left a comment on, and now they are comments attacking him.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-l_8YY8mWLI

They left out the part where

They left out the part where ron paul actually used to own the domain and made a mistake of not renewing it. Doesn't matter if anyone thinks that matters. But that is a huge part of the argment. it DID belong to ron paul before.

Yes, it belonged to a "Ron

Yes, it belonged to a "Ron Paul" before. But it was a different Ron Paul.

If a domain expires, the

If a domain expires, the person holding the domain has 30 days to request renewal. If after 30 days it is not renewed, it is then made available for anyone to purchase. If he waited longer then 30 days to renew and he lost it, Ron Paul won't have a case to be made. Those are the rules ICANN goes by.

A precedent: A case where a pro-union activist group owned Walmartsucks.com, Wal-Mart lost the law suite against the company for using Walmartsucks.com, they shut them down for using their trademark logo but Wal-Mart wound up paying close to $40 Million to obtain the domain name from the individual who registered it.

I buy and sell domain names quite a bit and am intimately familiar with the rules.

Michael Nystrom's picture

Furthermore, why wait 6 years to file the claim?

That's the part that should really be questioned.

I think this is why he might lose

This is the main reason he could lose. Not only did he wait 6 years. He KNEW that they had it and what they were doing with it all that time. Plus from what I gather he let the registration expire.

Not saying he will lose, but I think that is the key thing. And ethically that puts him in hot water to boot.

edit....just want to add that I really think a trademark owner has a duty/obligation to protect their mark. He clearly did not do that. This is why all those cease and desist letters are sent.

Guessing

It has something to do with retiring from office.

http://www.pbs.org/mediashift/2010/05/politicians-face-conse...

Market rates fluctuate. Maybe

Market rates fluctuate. Maybe if he waits another 5 years, it will go back to $10.

If it was RonpAUL.com

As in "Ronp" the American Underwater League advertising diving and water sport equipment, then RP wouldn't have a leg to stand on. But it's RonPaul.com selling Ron Paul using Ron Paul's fame, words, and photos...they benefit from the name for traffic and make money in the confusion. They might have multiple intentions, but they shouldn't be surprised they've run into trouble.

true but at least they were clear they were not Ron Paul

agreed. But on of the reasons for Trademarks is to avoid confusion (for us!) and they did a good job of being clear they were not associated with Ron Paul. That was one of the first sites I went to not surprisingly and it was clear to me.

It is sad that it came to this and they couldn't come to an agreement because both sides lose now. It will be interesting to see how it turns out.

Actually they didn't bother

Actually they didn't bother to be "clear" until August of 2010, that's why they threw up the whole "fan site" text.

If you don't believe me then check the screenshots on the internet archive yourself: http://archive.org/web/web.php

I don't see why this story has legs

If RP wants to pursue any type of legal action, he is free to do so. RP has no control over the fact that the UN handles these types of actions.

Or let RP have the site with the caveat that he must place a link for their new site on the front page for 24 months. Totally reasonable.

I'm voting down sorry. Not relevant, don't care.

There is a solution to this

called ronpaul.info

paulhakel.info
loveGodwithallyourheart.com

"The world has never known more oppressive governments or bigger governments than those which profess the cult of liberty." - Donald Sanborn

P.S.

I always went to ronpaul.com before dailypaul.com

paulhakel.info
loveGodwithallyourheart.com

"The world has never known more oppressive governments or bigger governments than those which profess the cult of liberty." - Donald Sanborn

let's hear what

Judge N. Has to say.