26 votes

Lew Rockwell on Ron Paul v RonPaul.com

There is so much disinformation on this issue that I will probably have to post more than once, but here are a few points:

--Ron is not using the State to acquire RonPaul.com. He could have brought a lawsuit in US government courts, but he did not. He is seeking to have ICANN enforce its own rules against cybersquatting, including the rule against registering a famous person’s name and making money off it. Anyone registering a URL agrees to keep all the rules, just as he must pay a recurring fee. A URL is not private property in the normal sense. It is a license, and ICANN is a private, non-profit organization.

--Ron is not calling on the UN. ICANN has four approved arbitration organizations. Because the RP.com guys registered Ron's name in Australia, the international arbitration option must be used. Yes, it is associated with the UN. Too bad, but one must play the cards one is dealt. The UN itself is not involved, though note—whatever else is wrong with it—the UN is not a State.

--Why did Ron wait so long to bring this claim? He did not feel he could do so as a public official. Once he became a private citizen again, he was freed.

--This fight is not about so-called intellectual property, since it involves private agreements. But if it were, must one agree with Murray Rothbard--who discussed IP more than 50 years ago--to be a libertarian? I agree with Murray, but IP is hardly a make or break issue. Certainly Murray did not see it as such. In the same sense, one need not be an anarcho-capitalist to be a libertarian, though, like Murray, I am one. One can be a constitutionalist or otherwise believe in limited government. Oh, and need I note that Murray loved and admired Ron?

--Is Ron "attacking his own supporters" by his action? Apparently, the RP.com people have never given a dime to any of his campaigns nor educational efforts. Instead, they are attacking Ron. Some supporters. But it will not work. And it will soon be over, freeing Ron from this distraction as he steps up his fight for freedom. Really steps it up, in historic ways.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/132275.html



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

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

You know, the simple fact is, no one knew who Ron Paul was.

You can probably still find a percentage of people IN THE US who do not know. When these people registered that domain, I was standing on street corners with signs begging people to "Google Ron Paul" - like I had, a few weeks earlier. Before that, I had no idea who he was. I even voted for him in 1988, but did not look at the name.
Someone below claims that Ron Paul drove traffic to the site, I say "BS to that." That site provided a place where the curious could find out who Ron Paul is.

Love or fear? Choose again with every breath.

I didn't know who Obama or Romney were

Until they ran for prez. Ron Paul on the other hand had already built up pretty sizeable national support over the years based on his voting record. I remember him saying that a great majority of his campaign donations for congress came from outside TX (I myself sent donations several times prior to the 2008 campaign). Ron Paul definitely was the driving force that motivated people to search him out on the net through his debate performances and through word of mouth from already existing supporters and on comments sections under articles related to the debates and other election related news articles. There were already multiple existing websites related to and friendly to RP including a few of his own that came up under a google search. Not saying RP.com didn't help at all, I just think you're giving them more credit than is due.

Obama/Romney Had Major Media Attention

Ron Paul had only grassroots support.

Nobody knew who Dr. Paul was so grassroots supporters purchased RonPaul.com to spread the message. Some libertarians knew about him. But so what. How many people were libertarians?

What's upsetting about this is RonPaul.com's owners are being slandered as profiteers, when the opposite is true.

After all is said and done, it's a dog eat dog, world, regardless of your political philosophy.

"Nobody knew who Dr. Paul was"

That just isn't true. If you said most people didn't know who he was, yes, that would be true. I stand by the statement that nation-wide, Ron Paul was far more well-known than Obama or Romney, though. Not just among libertarians, but also true conservative republicans. Before the internet, there were other sources of info. by which RP became well-known, such as magazines (especially the JBS publication the New American which published a voting index twice a year -- RP was always the poster boy with a 100% constitutional voting record), pamphlets from organizations like the National Taxpayers Union, NRA, JPFO, GOA, etc. not to mention talk radio...Ron was mentioned frequently on popular shows like the Chuck Harder Show among many others.

Of course Obama and Romney got the major media attention, they're members of the good ol' boys club (Duh!) and for those in the know, it's the best indication of who NOT to support.

Yeah, RP had only grassroots support -- for his entire political career, not just his presidential runs. Did the grassroots support create the candidate or did the candidate create the support? Think about it.

The RP.com owners are profiteers, obviously. $850,000, then $250,000 for a domain name? You think that guy is entitled to that kind of money from RP for a domain? Yeah, it's a dog eat dog world alright when so many of RP's "supporters" would throw him under the bus and defend that kind of shameful opportunism.

Can't help but notice

You've only been here for under 2 years... Where were you in 2008? Because no one knew who Ron Paul was. "Ron Who" was an "inside joke."
But whatever, I really am done discussing this issue. I feel that Ron Paul has not been good to the grassroots, this is only one of the reasons and none of them are worth rehashing over and over.

Love or fear? Choose again with every breath.

Here, Here

I second that.....the case has been turned over to the jury for verdict.....in the court of public opinion.

Next Case ?

Are you serious

Or is that sarcasm?

No sarcasm

I agreed with fishy that this topic has been discussed.......
No need to keep rehashing it.
I was not trying to get into his comment toward you or any other poster.
So to that I say, no sarcasm.

Serious about the court of public opinion.

I joined in '07 or '08

Can't remember which. After the '08 campaign was over, I stopped posting but continued popping in once in a while just to read. When I tried to start posting again in 2011, I'd forgotton my password and had to re-set...afterward, it showed me as being a new member for some reason.

I'm sure there are plenty of people here who'll tell you that they knew who RP was prior to 2008 (at least those of us who are over age 40). All libertarian minded people couldn't help knowing who he is because he's had a rep among that circle for at least a couple of decades.

I've accepted RP isn't perfect and hasn't acted exactly as I'd have liked him to in every situation. But I can be very forgiving when I remember that he took on two presidential campaigns at such an advanced age and educated millions of people because he did.

Ron Paul v RonPaul.com: CommonSism Amicus Filed

WIPO Amicus: Memetic Liberty Challenge to Intellectual Property; CommonSism Challenge to Anthropocentic Jurisprudence

EcoFeminist Sustainable Security Guerrylla Law CommonSist Amicus Curiae Submitted to ICANN: WIPO in Ron Paul v RonPaul.com dispute

Amicus alleges (1) WIPO’s ‘Intellectual Property’ doctrine is founded upon Memetic Tyranny Jurisprudence; (2) WIPO’s Treaties are not Credible Peace/Problem Solving Treaties. WIPO Treaties – like all International Treaties -- are Parasitic ‘War is Peace’ Whore Treaties, to the extent that they ignore CommonSism Guerrylla Law Sustainable Security and Sustainable Rights principles.

http://in-gods-name.blogspot.com/2013/02/wipo-amicus-memetic...

__________________________________________________________
CommonSism: Common Sense Guerrylla Laws 4 a Sustainable Commons

i wish ron paul had been this aggressive in his presidential run

i wish ron paul had been this aggressive over winning the election

Michael Nystrom's picture

Why all the linguistic acrobatics?

Rockwell is really twisting himself into a pretzel trying to justify all of these very non-libertarians institutions and behaviors.

There is a much easier way, and I don't know why Ron Paul didn't pursue it: It is called picking up the phone and negotiating. That is what you do in a true "free market."

The fact that ICANN / WIPO etc. exist does NOT mean that you have to use them. At least not as a first resort.

Let me say it again: It is very disappointing.

The only way to make sense out of change is to plunge into it, move with it, and join the dance. - Alan Watts

According to the complaint

The complaint filed by Paul suggest there was a negotiation. Ron Paul reached out and was told - "It is for sale at the price of 880,000 dollars" That was for the name only, no content and no email list.
Seems reasonable to assume Ron Paul inquired about the name only, no content.
The current offer is for 250,000 dollars, with conditions for email list. Still no language suggesting the theft of property. The content is the property owned by the site, the name is owned by the UN and leased to the site.
At no time was any consideration made for the content, the real property of the site. Intellectual property and copyrighted material included.
If there was no negotiation how did the price go from 880,000 to 250.000 with conditions ?
As I read it the 50.000 dollar appraisal offered by Paul in his complaint was for reimbursement of site cost and proposed cost of content transfer. Nothing about content, the site's property.

filed by RON PAUL

RON PAUL is not the Honorable congressman doctor Ronald Ernest Paul, but a legal team representing Honorable congressman Ronald Ernest Paul RETIRED.

RON PAUL reached out and asked, "What's the domain worth? and rompaul.com responded to what was IDEAL, staff saleries, consultants, attorneys, security, 6 years, advertizing, etc, and gave them them an IDEAL figure $856K.

RON PAUL came back and said, "What would you sell it for?"

ronpaul.com said $250K

RON PAUL filed an ICANN complaint using precident (not constitutional law) Hillary Clinton and Julia Roberts defamation through domain, and claimed the owners of ronpaul.com were operating the domain IN BAD FAITH.

I'm sure when the owners of ronpaul.com got that email they were scratching their heads. This is not what Ron Paul taught us in his message of Liberty, Sound Money and nonintervention.

We don't know if the honorable congressman doctor Ron Paul RETIRED hired RON PAUL, or someone or something else.

What we do know is ronpaul.com is under sttack by RON PAUL, and many of us are looking to what we are supposed to learn from this.

I think it would have been absolutly fantastic had the honorable congressman doctor Ronald Ernest Paul RETIRED called the owners of ronpaul.com and offered some gold or silver in trade. That would have made everyone happy and a win win.. instead, no one is happy and many are thinking WTF?

Free Market Negotiations

Well said. I cannot for the life of me fathom why they did not embark on negotiations, they could have resolved it in a win-win... this is really dissapointing.

__________________________________________________________
CommonSism: Common Sense Guerrylla Laws 4 a Sustainable Commons

Response to Lew Rockwell (Don't Bite The Hand That Feeds You)

Never thought the day would come when Ron Paul and Lew Rockwell would cry price gouging to the UN's World IP Police.

Ron Paul IS using the state to steal somebody's property.

The ICANN Cybersquatting Rules you reference were passed by no other than ... Bill Clinton in his Consumer Protections Act. I guarantee that Ron Paul would have railed against that bill if given the chance.

You said, Ron Paul didn't feel like he could bring a claim as a public official. Now that "he's freed" he can.

Barack Obama's Presidential Campaign confiscated one of his supporter's sites. He was an Illinois Senator at the time. Hillary Clinton did it as well. From the sound of things, you probably consider Dr. Paul in good company.

The more rational reason Dr. Paul didn't file the claim sooner, seems to be that he needed free labor for his two presidential campaigns, the Campaign for Liberty and Rand Paul's Senate Campaign. All of those things were supported by the owners at RonPaul.com. And all of those things MUST HAVE VOLUNTEER SUPPORT. So it looks like it was in Dr. Paul's best interest, at the time to let free labor manage it. Otherwise, he would have had to hire more staff.

He could have brought a lawsuit in US government courts, but didn't you say. Of course not. It would have cost a fortune. So, because they registered the site in Australia, he had no choice, but to go to the UN's World IP Police. (By the way, Lew. Nobody can opt-out of the ICANN policies, as you know. If you want to purchase a domain name, it's mandatory that you agree to ICANN's and the site's policies by checking a box as you're checking out. In addition, you agree to your credit cards policies, your internet provider's policies, your local, city, state and federal government's policies from where you're making the purchase, etc.)

Here's an idea. Why not negotiate with the owners before going to the IP police? According to RonPaul.com, Ron Paul never made a single phone call to the owner to express interest in the domain. Why wouldn't he just call and speak with the guys? If Dr. Paul was concerned over his trademark, why didn't he call them in 2008 - 2012?

Dr. Paul never owned the site. Ever. It's not like he once purchased it, then forgot to renew it. It was never his to begin with.

RonPaul.com's owner apparently purchased the domain in 2008 for $25,000 on Ebay. Then, invested 5 years building, growing and managing the site and social media accounts. RonPaul.com didn't rank when they purchased it. Not at all. Someone commented that they could've used any other domain and received higher rankings than with RonPaul.com.

They consistently wrote and posted articles, built leads, drove traffic, advertised, built and managed social media, etc. Running a website is hard work. They didn't add merchandise until later to finance their activism.

During that period, they drove traffic to Ron Paul's official sites, i.e., the2008 Campaign, Campaign for Liberty, Rand Paul's Campaign and the 2012 Campaign. They supported all money bombs, book releases, fundraising activities, petitioning drives, etc.

It's disingenuous (at best) to depict them as freeloaders when you know the opposite is true. Dr. Paul made out like a bandit on grassroots support and saved his fundraising revenues that should have been spent on media buys in key areas. In fact, his money bomb advertised Ron Paul vs Romney. I'm still waiting for that debate.

It took a lot of hard work to do what RonPaul.com's owners managed. Selling t-shirts and merchandise is not exactly the path to the Forbes 100.

So now you think Ron Paul's entitled to the domain because Bill Clinton put loopholes in the law?

Tell me, Lew. Why can't Ron Paul privately negotiate with the site's owners at this point? He has made out like a bandit from fundraising activities, book sales, etc the last five years off. And I'm happy for him. And I'm happy to have contributed. But it was a huge financial, professional and personal sacrifice for many of us. These guys deserve far more respect than you're giving them.

Where is the proof that the

Where is the proof that the people @ ronpaul.com are Ron Paul supporters? All it is is people leeching off of Ron Paul.

Here's one screen shot of the

Here's one screen shot of the site from May 2008. You can look all through the web.archives and you'll see them pushing traffic to Dr. Paul's sites.

http://web.archive.org/web/20080519212829/http://www.ronpaul...

I know there website, that

I know there website, that does not prove anything. They did that when people questioned them about not linking to Ron Paul's official website. What did they do outside there website?

Yes, it prooves that

you're not seeing Debbie does Dallas and racist propeganda?

Seems to me you need to come up with a screenshot of what you saw, otherwise it's hearsay at best.

Great post until the last paragraph

Although I agree, and would like to know why Ron Paul could'nt neghotiate.. maybe that is part of the ICANN deal? But I doubt Ron Paul made out like a bandit, and by saying that, it's insulting and not a good fight just for that.

Respect needs to be both ways, and saying "made out like a badit" is assuming and has nothing to do with the facts.

Ok. Thanks and apologies.

Ok. Thanks and apologies. Consider it withdrawn.

Bump

Bump

Trolls?

Do we have trolls on the DP trying to cause problems between Ron Paul and those he inspires? Let's stick together. RP has a right to control his name and image.

Groupies?

Do we have groupies on the DP trying to force total consensus among a group of libertarians? Let's allow free speech. We all have a right to question everything, even Ron Paul.
He is not God, he is not even a Savior. He is a man, and when he does things I don't like, I will speak up. There are many here who are trying to carry on the battle, and for us, TRUTH is the only sword worth carrying. This whole fiasco almost certainly could have been worked out amicably but both parties have behaved like twits, as near as I can tell.

Love or fear? Choose again with every breath.

When someone has a different opinion

...it doesn't necessarily make them a troll.

We all want progress, but if you're on the wrong road, progress means doing an about-turn and walking back to the right road; in that case, the man who turns back soonest is the most progressive.

-C. S. Lewis

Front page this. Now.

Front page this. Now. Please?

I've already made many of these points while defending Ron Paul on this website about the domain name issue. But Lew is so much more eloquent and concise.

Ron Paul tweeted and Facebooked it

But it's not good enough for this place.

I don't do facebook or twitter.

I dailypaul. Maybe Dr. Paul should try it.

Love or fear? Choose again with every breath.

Did not feel he could as public citizen?

"He did not feel he could do so as a public official. Once he became a private citizen again, he was freed". Substantiation? Reasoning?