-164 votes

Did Ron Paul Just Destroy His Own Legacy and Legitimacy?

One giant slip for mankind...

Ron Paul Files International Copyright Complaint Against His Own Fans

(This isn't going over very well all over the political map...)

http://www.buzzfeed.com/rosiegray/ron-paul-files-internation...

"Ron Paul has filed a complaint with the World Intellectual Property Organization against the proprietors of RonPaul.com and RonPaul.org, according to a blog post on their site on Friday."

snip...

"Even more shocking to the proprietors is that Paul's complaint was lodged with a U.N. agency, an organization that garners mistrust among libertarians...."

---------full article linked above.

Mistrust is not the word! True conservatives find the UN to be reprehensible. Hardcore republicans HATE the United Nations...strong word, but true...and justified.

Good Lord, why did you do that Ron!!! You're a doctor and a politician, so why on earth would you treat a small headache with LSD?

This goes against over 40 years of Ron Paul's grain.

He admitted it was a mistake not to own the site in the first place. The free market demands a fair price, but Ron Paul does not want to pay it even though he is wealthy beyond most of us here put together. He'd rather seek a solution to a relatively small personal problem from an agency of the United Nations of all things?

For real? As if his houses aren't already paid for. Give me a break, Ron Paul. (Never thought I'd say that!)

Did Ron Paul do this because no court or lawyer in the United States would hear or take his case?

Did Ron Paul exhaust ALL American judicial avenues first, before seeking a UN fix to his own personal issues?

I'm totally lost in Ron Paul's, "World Intellectual Property Organization," political sauce.

I feel like a young, rational man who has just been told that Santa's UN Clause is real.

Ron Paul's actions pertaining to the issue of his own domain website seems super hypocritical, and contradicting at best.

The, "free market," solution to the good Doctor's problem would be to make his own website....www.ronepaul.com

Simple solution Ron, with no UN strings attached.

Comment viewing options

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

I'm beginning to feel that if I cannot understand . . .

the myriad (labyrinth) of laws that surround modern technology--

or the technology that is surrounded by the perplexing laws--

that I shouldn't be in the liberty business.

I should stick to growing vegetables.

:(

I am struggling to understand this. I guess my 60s-era college education didn't prepare me for this. It prepared me to think, however--

and I do think--

but . . .

at one point I considered going into law, and now I guess I am glad I didn't--

I'd rather garden--

but I cry "uncle!"--

As for Dr. Paul's integrity, I don't know. I allow the man to make mistakes; he's not a god.

it's hard to be awake; it's easier to dream--

The individuals that fear freedom are still threatened by Ron P.

Hey, it's dog eat dog out there and lawsuits will happen with almost anyone in the public eye.
What I cannot figure out is why the owners of ronpaul.com do not just give Ron Paul his name back without charging money? It seems as though if ronpaul.com had done their due diligence they would not be crying about financial loss or what seems to me lack of financial gain.
Reminds me of the song "Have a Cigar" by Pink Floyd, or Steal Your Face from the Grateful Dead.
They taught us in school to put our names on things that we want to keep so that there is no confusion as to who the true owner is. It is funny how the original poster makes no mention of the legal trademark that Paul has on his own name.
RP.com needs to knock off this pathetic victim status, if RP.com has legal grounds to keep their site they have nothing whine about and Ron Paul is wasting his time and money...but that's not the Ron Paul that I know.
One other thing...I hope Jesse Benton stays under whatever rock he is under because I am so glad I do not have to see his megalomaniac mug in the news.

It really is a head-scratcher

I've heard some argue "but it's a famous name and they're profiting off it". However, I think the following scenarios illustrate the complete absurdity of saying a person deserves a domain name just because they're famous.

1) There are 2 famous people with the exact same name. I own the domain name though. They both argue that they deserve the name because they're famous. Who deserves it? And if their concern is my profiting off the site how would they split up profits between the 2 famous people?

2) What if I own a domain name before there is a famous person of that name? In other words, let's say someone bought "RonPaul.com" prior to Ron Paul getting into politics. (I realize the internet didn't exist back then but it's still a valid example). Would I be required to give up the name? And who judges at what point a person is famous enough to own their own name?

3) Let's say Ron Paul changed his name to John Smith. Would the owner of JohnSmith.com have to give up the domain?

4) Does a famous person's name that happens to be generic get the same treatment as a famous person who's name is more uncommon? Michael Jordan is kind of a "regular name" so should the panel that decides this stuff say "well you can't force a guy to give up that name because it's just too generic".

It is not about the name but the intent of the buyer.

When dealing with trade mark and cyber squatting the real issue is why did the person buy the domain?

1. Why did you buy the name? Which of the 2 famous people are you promoting on the site? Did you buy the name before one or both were famous and did you buy it to profit off of the name? Did you contact either and try and sell the name?

2. The person would only have to be famous enough for you to know who they are and that motivated you to buy their name.

3. No

4. It all goes to the intent of the person who bought the name. If you own a name and are selling soap and someone with the same name becomes famous you keep the name. If someone becomes famous for making soap then you buy even a common name and start selling soap you are violating their trade mark.

The laws are about protecting individual ownership and not allowing others to profit by misleading people. Domain names are controlled by an international body and you consent to arbitration when you buy a name. If Ron Paul went after a goat herder that had ronpaul.com and was using the web page to sell goats then that would not fly. In this case, Ron Paul owned the name RonPaul.com but never used it and at one point failed to pay the yearly fee to own the name. At that point other people bought the name and and used it to profit off his name. Yes Ron Paul did wait till after he was out of office to take action, but I am sure he just did not want to taint his last time is office with all the BS this action would bring on him and the misunderstandings about his actions. He gave these people a pass till he got out of office and in return they demanded $250,000 for him to get his name back.

The truth is Ron Paul is being nice by taking it to arbitration. If he had filed a law suit in the US under Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act (ACPA), 15 U.S.C. § 1125(d) they would be found guilty and have to pay $100,000. They clearly knew they bought someone's name and the tried to make a huge profit selling it back, in violation of US law. It is a slam dunk case because they have admitted they are demanding $250,000. I am all for the free market but I am against fraud and intentionally trying to mislead or steal from others.

And what about this case

Let's say that I bought the name of someone who was only moderately famous and I sold merchandise related to that person's name. Who would be the judge of "this person is famous enough for domain name confiscation"?

And let's say that I owned a site with a domain name unrelated to Ron Paul but I sold merchandise related to Ron Paul. Would that be okay? If so, does that mean it's only not okay to sell shirts under the direct name RonPaul? What if I purchased "endthefed.com"? Is that an issue he's sufficiently championed that he should be able to confiscate that domain name?

So we're letting bodies determine if...

...our intent is "pure enough" for them before we're allowed to transact?

Also, what if the domain name was of someone infamous? Let's say I owned BernieMadoff.com and I used it to sell merchandise related to the scandal? Would Bernie Madoff have a right to try to get that domain name back?

NO! He didn't.

Don't buy into the media lies about Dr. Paul.

"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

You people have no forward vision

Well, those of you who don't see why this line in the sand is being drawn.

The people who "borrowed" Ron Paul's name to make big bucks selling t-shirts and creating an email list did so, well, let's just say it wasn't completely altruistic.

Now that Dr. Paul is out of Congress and looking to use his national platform to "take the gloves off" so to speak when it comes to his criticism of DC and both major parties, he's being held up for a quarter million dollars just to take control the most logical and search engine optimized domain out there for his personal brand - ronpaul.com.

NOW, if there was ANOTHER Ron Paul out there who was using this domain to promote HIMSELF, that would be one thing. But that's not what's happening. I'm sure the owners of ronpaul.com and ronpaul.org have contributed money and aided the money bomb process during the '08 and '12 campaigns, but the grassroots campaign for federal office portion of Dr. Paul's career is over.

So at this point, it seems like a domain used to make money off the Ron Paul (the statesman) brand is being held hostage for an amount of money that's quite ludicrous.

Here's where the detractors of Dr. Paul's (required) entrance into iCANN facilitated arbitration have absolutely no vision or have conveniently forgotten the brilliance of Dr. Paul... you ready??

Who is the most guilty, by far, of taking individuals digital image and digital identity, use it without their permission and do it all for a profit?? Any takers?

GOVERNMENT.

Think of the examples:

TSA Naked Body Scanners
Red Light Cameras
CCTV
Social Media info seizures by Intelligence Agencies
Obamacare mandated data mining
Insurance databases sold to gov't agencies

Do I need to go on?

Ron Paul had little choice but to go through arbitration through iCANN with this case. To throw out the connection to the UN was pretty disingenuous.

I'm all for "sampling" and republication, but to flat-out sell someone else's physical identity as a product without their permission is basically theft.

I will concede that damages are tough to prove in a case like this, especially to quantify them. However, the arbitration process is designed to create a settlement that both sides can agree to.

I know ronpaul.org is being offered for free as an olive branch, but any web/seo strategist worth their salt knows that this is just an invitation to start an all-out SEO war between the two sites, which will cost both of them a lot of money and will be won by Dr. Paul in the end.

In my opinion, going to the iCANN mandated arbitration was actually taking the high road.

If anyone has a problem with iCANN being controlled by a wing of the UN, I am completely on your side, but that's a side issue that needs to be addressed in the Internet Freedom movement which seems to be taking root rather quickly.

After reading several sides of this story, I'd have to say that it's a little disappointing to see the sensationalism going around. Most would agree that we Paulies are fighting some pretty serious battles for our bill of rights, which are clearly under direct and heavy fire on Capitol Hill as we speak.

(PS I have yet to see a "Let's buy Dr. Paul RonPaul.com for the fair price of $250k Moneybomb" anywhere. I'm sure I missed it...)

Dr. Paul is merely defending his intellectual property.

Nothing more, nothing less. Some of us (including myself) do not believe in the legitimacy of intellectual property, but it is a highly controversial issue among libertarians. We can agree to disagree about it. Saying that Dr. Paul is tarnishing his legacy by defending his intellectual property is preposterous. It would be like the pro-choice libertarians claiming that Dr. Paul destroyed his legacy by being pro-life. There is no consensus libertarian position on intellectual property, as there is no consensus libertarian position on abortion.

Relax. :-)

"Alas! I believe in the virtue of birds. And it only takes a feather for me to die laughing."

For everyone who keeps repeating that ronpaul.com is only

interested in enriching themselves, why don't you ask Michael Nystrom how rich he's gotten using Ron Paul's name and running a website trying to spread liberty? Ridiculous!

And as for ronpaul.com---I wouldn't even want to be associated with Ron Paul's name after this, it's so disgraceful. Keep the domain, but start another website to disseminate the liberty message.

Christians should not be warmongers! http://www.lewrockwell.com/vance/vance87.html

The more I read and think about it

The more I'm coming around to the opinion that RP shouldn't have taken this route. It does seem to be in conflict with his principles and ideals of free market libertarianism.

I still can't take the side of the domain owners, though. Whatever the law is and whatever the arguments from either side, I have to judge by my own common sense and empathy...if I'd been the one to purchase the domain, as a loyal Ron Paul suppporter, I'd have immediately offered it to RP at the same price I paid. To do otherwise would put me in a bad faith position as a grassroots supporter, even if I used the site to bolster his campaign. If the original goal was to keep the site out of the wrong hands, what better way to do that than to get the domain into RP's own hands immediately?

And what is the defininiton of "the wrong hands" anyway? For me, it isn't just detractors and porn operators, but those that would buy the domain and sit on it in the interest of extracting a high price. Yeah, I know, that's capitalism. But is it ethical? Especially when it's someone who claims to be a grassroots supporter?

Thankyou for being willing to rethink your position. I also

see what you're saying, but I, like so many others, gave when I really couldn't afford to give (to see Ron Paul elected). If Ron Paul approached me now and asked me to give him something I'd worked so hard for, I would be extremely hesitant to hand it over--especially if I thought it would put a "kink" in the message of the liberty movement. RonPaul.com politely told Ron Paul this, but he disregarded it and forged ahead anyway--hence my current thoughts on the matter. If anyone else did what Ron Paul has done, they would be accused of putting their own interests above the good of the people (getting the liberty message to as many as possible). But, Ron Paul has been given a free pass it seems. This is very disappointing to me.

Christians should not be warmongers! http://www.lewrockwell.com/vance/vance87.html

Thanks for the thoughtful reply

I can certainly understand where you're coming from. I too donated when I couldn't afford to, as did many many others. Put yourself in RP's shoes though. None of us have sacrificed even a scintilla of what RP himself has. He sacrificed so much time and energy over 30 years, practically all alone, battling in congress to protect and defend our best interests. He refused the lucrative pension plan that all other congressmen accept. He took on 2 presidential runs when most other politicians would retire and bask in the wealth acquired through corrupt dealings and govt. entitlements. Apparently, he didn't want to run. People like us begged him to do it, so he did.

The owners of RonPaul.com didn't donate any money to the campaign (they can't, they're foreigners) nor to C4L (which they could have) though merchandise for sale with RP's name and image make up about half of their website content. The articles are of the cut 'n paste variety. They claim they've worked and sweated for years to keep the webpage up. Admittedly, I don't have much experience creating and maintaining websites, but I took a dreamweaver class and found that once the original webpage is built (which could take less than one day if you know what you're doing), cutting and pasting text and inserting photos and captions in a simple format like the one on RP.com doesn't take much work, much less sweat. It would be more like a hobby than a full-time job for one person. In any case, RP doesn't even want the website, just the domain.

Who gave the name Ron Paul (and hence, the domain RonPaul.com) value...the owners of the domain or the man himself who worked all his life to build up a spotless reputation? I don't think RP asked for the domain for free, he had the site appraised at $50,000. For "grassroots supporters" to ask him for $800,000 or $250,000 for the domain is like a kick in the teeth, imo. I think that's pretty disappointing too, and I think they're the ones who're getting a free pass by many here.

It Could

I've read the complaint.

RON PAUL is a CORPORATION, assigned by three people who are legating the CORPORATE NAME, RON PAUL, for someone.

It could be the Honorable Congressman Doctor Ronald Ernest Paul RETIRED, but it is not the Honorable Congressman Ronald Ernest Paul republican presidential contender.

It appears RON PAUL asked the owners of the domain ronpaul.com the value of their domain. It also seems ronpaul.com thought they were being contacted by the Honorable Congressman Ronald Ernest Paul republican presidential contender, not RON PAUL the corproation.

So ronpaul.com responded with an IDEAL figure considering living wages for staff, consultation, security, insurance.. and they came up with $856K. That is not unreasonable from the prices I've seen.. apparently Ron Paul is worth less than many domains owned by Disney.

RON PAUL then asked ronpaul.com, How much do you want to sell it for? ronpaul.com says, $250K.

All this is going on DP, MSM picks it up, Lew chimes in, viseos come out all making ronpaul.com look like they want to take from poor old the Honorable Congressman Ronald Ernest Paul republican presidential contender, our beloved man of principle and integrity, leading us to retore the republic with diplomacy, free trade, sound money and constitutional government.

Many people appear to have RON PAUL and the Honorable Congressman Ronald Ernest Paul republican presidential contender, confused as the same person.

RON PAUL is not using diplomacy, offering to trade with sound money and employ the constitution/bill of right, rather RON PAUL is employing precedent (Hillary and Julia Roberts are mentioned as domain names were slandered and the powners operated the sites in bad faith, and they are going through legal means.

So it appears, one day, ronpaul.com opened an email to find the complaint. I don't think they expected that. The complaint says the owners of ronpaul,com acted in bad faith and are trying to rob the Honorable Congressman Ronald Ernest Paul republican presidential contender of his good name and profit off it.

How much better would it have been for the Honorable Congressman Ronald Ernest Paul republican presidential contender to email or contact the owners of ronpaul.com and aske them what they wanted to sell the domain name for and offer to trade sound money? I believe the Honorable Congressman Ronald Ernest Paul republican presidential contender would have made his point, sticking to his principles, than hiring a legal team in the name of RON PAUL to FORCE the owners of ronpaul.com to give RON PAUL the domain name.

This is why I wonder if it's the Honorable Congressman Ronald Ernest Paul republican presidential contender who is behind the law suit, or maybe it's his friends again.. the ones who write racist remarks in a newsletter called RON PAUL NEWSLETTER?

Anyone can answer WHO is RON PAUL?

Granger

You are one of the reasons I joined here.

But you are making me ill. You say Dr. Paul should spend close to a million for that website, but you were one of his biggest cheerleaders.

I love you but I disagree, ronpaul.com should be given freely if those people really mean what they write.

You have also wrote you don't want to be close to a certain speaker at the convention.

Don't be a wuss. Go listen to the lecture. Be yourself. Be you. Otherwise there is no Granger. Only an open seat for another neo-con which you hate, supposedly.

No offense intended.

No DFarrell

IF Dr. Paul wanted the domain name, he could have contacted ronpaul.com and asked them if they would like to trade gold, or silver, at HIS PRICE.. make an offer, and keep with his principle of sound money, free trade, constitution government.

I get little notes on my samurai suzuki all the time: "Want to sell your car? Call me @ number." Dr. Paul could have done that. What's it worth to him? Make a decent offer.. How much is it worth? $250K? If ronpaul.com said, NO WAY.. then hire a legal team in the name of RON PAUL and sue to get the domain name, as is happening.

Should I give my suzuki to someone name SAMURAI because they want it? Does their being a famous SAMURAI make it more fair or just?

I have heard that Justin Paimondo is going to be speaking at the convention. Raimondo is not supporting Rand, just called him a turncoat.

I am supporting Rand, because I prefer Rand to Rubio, who the GOP has funded with $30M, and buying MSM news/votes.

So whose side is Raimondo on? Rove's or Rand's?

I don't believe I'm being a wuss, because the speaker who I want to see is Karl Rove. Rove has started a Victory PAC he wants to use to keep the Bush Republicans in office and kick the Ron Paul/ Rand Paul RepubliCANS out.

I love you too (((((((((DFarrell))))))))))

You got brown-bagged

Those notes on your car were left by car salesmen trying to get you in to buy a car. They call it brown-bagging, because when they started doing it, they would write the note on a torn piece of brown paper bag.

Ohhhh

The guys who painted my car tell me I should never wash it, use an air compressor to dust if off, and put it in car shows becasue ot's in excellent condition and people LOVE it.

divide and conquer

http://lewrockwell.com/goodwin/goodwin25.1.html here is an indepth look into the ACTUAL situation. It is unsurprising that Fox News and CNN never mentioned the guy when he was RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT, but now they jump at the chance to talk about him in order to burn him.

Great link

In this case, ICANN (a private organization) is the entity that both assigns domain names and has developed the procedures for dispute resolution. ICANN has chosen WIPO to adjudicate such disputes. That WIPO happens to be housed within the UN is irrelevant; where else can Ron Paul go? It isn’t by Ron Paul’s doing that the jurisdiction and procedures are established in this manner. In fact, the registrants agreed to these procedures at the time of registration.

Malarchy.

Malarchy.

What a bunch of CRAP

Sometimes I don't even have to wonder WHY we failed.
Of course Ron Paul did not win, has since retired, and would like to get on with his life doing his best to educate and enlighten people to the message of liberty. PERIOD.
So why would he even want to continue having all of these sites tied to his name for any reason...other than maybe Ron Paul forums and the Daily Paul, so that those of us who still crave liberty and wish to restore the republic can communicate our own latest effort's.
And as far as the UN crap goes...hello-hello.
In case any of you self proclaimed patriot's forgot, Obama has pretty much handed the internet over to the control of the UN, and so where else would Ron go in order to have ANYTHING done, or to make his wishes known?
So anyone spouting off about this ill intent or about face of Ron Paul is either a neo-con implant (nyuk-nyuk) or an establishment globalist trolmeister wanting to grow some (whatever) division and diversion within the liberty movement. Don't be foolish. They want to discredit Rand. I believe most of us are way smarter than to fall for the CRAP.

RAND PAUL or NOT AT ALL

No

LOL!

Do you think he did?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AEHFiRL9axA

For Freedom!
The World is my country, all mankind is my brethren, to do good is my religion.

I don't want to add more fuel to the (non)fire but..

The MSM is having a propaganda field day with this to smear the Liberty movement.

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2013/02/ron-paul-feu...

At the beginning i was shocked. But since it atlanticwire.com, a well known establishment media, i decided to investigate this further by reading the boring pdf of the complaint.

And the truth came out afterwards as who is lying here. The article states that Ron Paul wants the website and the mailing list. This is absolutely NOT TRUE.
He only wants RonPaul.com and RonPaul.org names.
Ron Paul has his name trade marked, I suppose because he published his first book back on 1982 so thats a normal thing to do just to protect yourself from someone using ur trademark for profit.

Another lie, and here I do not know who is lying: the article or the current website owners, is that they never tried to sell the domain names to Ron Paul for $848k or $250k and that they tried to give the RonPaul.org as a free gift.
So if you read the complaint itself, it clearly states that the guy first tried to sell both RonPaul.com and RonPaul.org (he owns both addresses) to RonPaul for $848k and then they had an email exchange and the offer dropped to $250k for RonPaul.com and RonPaul.org would be a free gift.
So the article states a lie....

The complaint clearly states that Ron Paul only wants the addresses since he has a trademark for it and that the current owners are making commercial use of it by selling Ron Paul merchandize that is not coming from ron paul.

As for UN thing, it is not a tribunal but a one member panel and plus, i figure, thats the only jurisdiction u can go to for DNS disputes since internet is global.

I love how the article assumes that readers wont go and investigate the whole thing from the original source. GREAT EXAMPLE OF PROPAGANDA!

Slap yourself please

move on

Downvote #100!

Woohoo. I don't think I've seen an article hit -100 votes yet! There's a first time for everything.

Zooamerica: stfu and put your try pants on. The Liberty Movement, as Karen Carpenter would say:

"We've onLY just BEgun..."

Yeah I'm 28 y/o and I referenced KC. SO WHAT?

Lima-1, out.

If you don't know your rights, you don't have any.

Sigh…

This ridiculous controversy was no doubt started by a plant and/or a gullible moron.

On Facebook:
Personal ProfilePolitical GroupPolitical Page

Sigh

You're a little late to the party, this has been explained many times already.

He's NOT going to the UN. He's going to ICANN. Per ICANN policy WIPO will be resolving the dispute.

"The free market demands a fair price, but Ron Paul does not want to pay it"

Demanding almost a MILLION DOLLARS is NOT a fair price for a domain name which cost $10 out-of-pocket, and has been appraised at only $50,000.

How do people still not get this!!??

1) The current website owner, an Australian, agreed to any possible future disputes with the domain to be handled through WIPO

2) Ron Paul is now seeking to clear up said dispute through the agreed institution: WIPO

3) The fact that WIPO is some branch of a UN body is IRRELEVANT!

Carry On! PLEASE!!!!!!

"We are not human beings having a spiritual experience; we are spiritual beings having a human experience"—Pierre Teilhard de Chardin