Did Ron Paul Just Destroy His Own Legacy and Legitimacy?
Submitted by zooamerica on Wed, 02/13/2013 - 23:45One 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.
- Login to post comments
Only for true disciples
Not for true liberty lovers. Ron Paul has done several things that I disagree with, and a few that flat out pissed me off. That hardly diminishes my respect for all the good he has done. I lose patience with those who worship him like a hero, and I suppose those are the type who will consider his entire legacy destroyed by one act they don't like.
Ron Paul supports a new 9-11 investigation.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fH9nOWnp5G0
Lew Rockwell
Comments put this into context - if you haven't read them - you should.
This is a stupid argument for the community to be having. Sorry to tell ya Ron Paul is not a G-d, Demi- god, or other immortal. He is just a man, albeit an extremely rare and honorable man.
If you're not personally familar with first hand knowledge of Ron's side of the story...piss off. This pathetic in fighting is sending warm fuzzys to the status que. turns out the liberty people are simply just "Leeple" and easier to manipulate than even the sheeple.
Even though the leeple have 30+ years of selfless service in the name of freedom, couple of one sided stories in our standard prop rags, by usually known lying authors, and this turns the movement on its own and on the standard bearer who stood alone for most of those 30 years.
The man who gives the money from his books to an economic eduction foundation, who didn't take any of the retirement or handouts outside of his paycheck from his time in congress is trying to "squeeze" someone for money?!
Pathetic, and sad.
Good luck, you all are gonna need luck cause your easily spin into worthless endeavors that will bring you not.
peAce
Liberty = Responsibility
is randpaul.com taken? ;)
is randpaul.com taken? ;)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bFxvy9XyUtg
Yep
http://randpaul.com/
Doesn't look like his official website either. They actually included a link to a Copyright and Trademark Infringement Notification Policy at the bottom. lol
Propaganda peice
Trying to splinter and discredit the messenger, Ron Paul, as if that will discredit the message.
Well I want to say this to Buzz Feed and whoever wrote that trash.
It wont work because the message of freedom is not about Ron Paul or any who would like to run up front with a bag of false debt slave fiat compounding debt issue at usuary counterfit federal reserve NOTES and try to act like they are leading, as Bob Barr, CIA did to the Tea Party.
Wont work try again.
sovereign
"try again"
Oh they will, lol! And again and again an again..... (;
We *know* who Ron Paul is. The hits will continue, but we do know better. He does need to get it under control. It could end up in much worse hands.
Let Me Add My Two Cents
DOWNVOTE!!!!!!!!!
skippy
Let's buy the domain for Ron and gift it to him!
The domain is clearly means a lot to Ron, and it's clearly worth a lot to us. So why are we attacking the domain owner and permitting Ron to suffer through lawsuits, when we can simply show our support for Ron and have one of our famous chip-ins to buy RonPaul.com on Ron Paul's behalf?
In this way, Ron would get RonPaul.com, there would be no need for a lawsuit or a blight on Ron's legacy, and we'd all be living examples of the free market in action.
Do you want to buy the site for Ron and gift it to him? Or would you all rather snipe at the OP while letting Ron suffer through legacy-tarnishing litigation?
Ron Paul will handle this without us 'stepping in'.
For Pete's sake, we worked hard for him because we believe he could handle governing (saving!) this counry... We know he can handle his own affairs without us stepping in. It's not about lack of money.
Broker?
And your cut is...? Suffer? No one is going to care and it will get no coverage.
"One resists the invasion of armies; one does not resist the invasion of ideas" Victor Hugo
I suggested an idea. I
I suggested an idea. I didn't suggest that I manage the idea and get a brokerage fee. I think you owe me an apology for implying that my intentions were anything less than pure; I really don't appreciate the subtle maligning of my character.
I also wasn't suggesting we do it for political coverage, but because it is a way to show our appreciation to Dr. Paul that also pulls him out of a bad situation that IS hurting him. People might not care that we are helping him; but many people certainly do care that Ron is, in their minds, wrongfully suing an enterprising fan that has helped promote the Ron Paul name and cause for years.
I can think of better ways of using our hard earned money
I can think of better ways of using our hard earned money for a money bomb, especially since I have the feeling that Dr. Ron Paul, anyway, is in his own name and rights for that domain name per ICANN's rules.
I believe (hope) we can keep such money on our end for now, hopefully for future and more constructive actions to restore liberty.
Let's not forget it's just a domain name.
$250K for a few hundred bytes long records on stupid DNS servers?
I mean, ouch. Dang. Ouch. Dang. Ouch.
Thanks, but not thanks. I hope Dr. Ron Paul wins the case.
My name's pronounced like "see real". Its root is "Lord".
"The demand of a great people is always at the scale of its most serious misfortunes." --De Gaulle
http://Laissez-Faire.Me/Liberty
Having studied copyright law,
Having studied copyright law, it's my firm belief that Ron Paul has no chance at winning this case. But I completely understand if you think there are better uses for $250K of grassroots funding--even if $250K is a VERY fair price for this particular .com domain, user base, mailing list, Facebook account, and matching .org domain.
Wrong subject
Study trademark & service mark law as well as cyber squatting laws & rulings.
"One resists the invasion of armies; one does not resist the invasion of ideas" Victor Hugo
When a mans name can be used taken
then held hostage, I dont really care about who has this law or that proclaimation or this dictate it BS.
The dude that took the domain is dead wrong just trying to cash in on somone elses name. Wrong is wrong in my world no matter what shill dictate some one likes to quote as their so called LAW.
These is comon sense in the end.
sovereign
Right and Wrong
What if the name were not being held hostage? What if it were instead just being held without any hope or desire to make a sale or profit? I think you'd still object to the guy owning the domain name.
And since you would likely still object to it, what you are really objecting to is the unauthorized use of Ron Paul's publicity rights. You're right that unauthorized use of another's publicity rights is dead wrong and illegal; but what you fail to acknowledge is that Dr. Paul actually abandoned the publicity rights to his name when he permitted and encouraged his fans around the globe to promote liberty through him. His abandonment of the publicity rights to his name is why sites like RonPaulForums and RonPaulFlix are allowed to exist alongside DailyPaul and, indeed, RonPaul.com.
It's not just A man's name
If you search this directory for "Ron Paul" you get 100+ people:
http://50states.addresses.com/results.php?ReportType=34&aid=...
Which Ron Paul should have exclusive rights to the name "Ron Paul"?
Ron Paul should have the right....
Ron Paul, whoever it is should have the right to RonPaul.com, not some admirer. RON PAUL the Congressman would have a tough time to win this case because of the public use of his name, but Ron Paul the person shouldn't have a problem defending his position. He should have the right to request removal of all material that intends to profit off his personal name.
Preparation through education is less costly than learning through tragedy
Isn't DailyPaul profiting off
Isn't DailyPaul profiting off his personal name? I see ads on this site and I see Reince Preibus saying that the DailyPaul influences his strategy and occupies his time as Republican National Committee Chairman. Would DailyPaul have been able to attract that kind of profit and political influence if it weren't using Ron Paul's name? I don't think so. By your logic, Ron Paul can and should confiscate DailyPaul, RonPaulFlix, RonPaulForums, etc.
Any or all of them but
certianly not Job Bob or Dim Jones.
sovereign
The one whose name and image is plastered all over the website
No one has an exclusive right to the name, we're talking about the domain. I don't think any other Ron Paul wants it.
ICANN
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, based in Los Angeles: http://www.icann.org/ This is where you go to file a dispute against a cyber-squatter, you don't do it at your city hall.
Using the ICANN Procedure:
In 1999, ICANN adopted and began implementing the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDNDRP), a policy for resolution of domain name disputes. This international policy results in an arbitration of the dispute, not litigation. An action can be brought by any person who complains (referred to by ICANN as the "complainant") that:
1. a domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights (Ron Paul is his name and he is a public figure. No one associates it with Ron Paul from Anchorage, AK or Mobile, AL)
2. the domain name owner has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name (the campaign is over, Dr. Paul has left politics).
3. the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith (holding Dr. Paul hostage for payment)
All of these elements must be established in order for the complainant to prevail. If the complainant prevails, the domain name will be canceled or transferred to the complainant. However, financial remedies are not available under the UDNDRP.
Dr. Paul is going to prevail.
"One resists the invasion of armies; one does not resist the invasion of ideas" Victor Hugo
1. Ron Paul has not
1. Ron Paul has not trademarked or service marked his name, nor has he retained the publicity rights to his name. If Ron Paul were to succeed on the merits of dispute #1, then Ron Paul could and should shut down every Ron Paul site (including the DailyPaul.com) that might compete or dilute his trademark, service mark, and publicity rights. (Obviously, no one associates the DailyPaul and its political discussions with Ron Paul from Anchorage, AK or Mobile, AL, so any internet traffic that the DailyPaul occupies is by definition diluting Ron Paul's own use and potential future use of his name, trademark, service mark, and publicity rights according to the argument you've made above.)
2. The current domain name owner clearly has rights and a legitimate interest in the domain name as he's using it to educate the public, publish media (articles, videos, books, etc), sell goods, generally promote a political philosophy, expedite and encourage citizen participation in government, etc. To say that the domain name owner has no legitimate interests in these pursuits simply because Ron Paul has left politics is absurd as libertarians worldwide (and others) clearly still identify with the "Ron Paul" movement.
3. The domain name was not registered in bad faith. It was registered to engage in exactly the type of behavior it is promoting. Likewise, the domain name owner is not "holding Dr. Paul hostage for payment" as you wrongly claim; instead, the domain name owner is actively estimating the value of the namespace property he has developed, maintained, and promoted for years and the effort, time, and expenses it would likely take to export that business and activism into another space where it will be equally visible and trafficked, if that's at all possible (probably not).
While I'd love for Ron Paul to own RonPaul.com, he has no chance at winning this case. His only chance is to overwhelm the domain name owner with legal fees so high that a settlement becomes a necessity, but it would be ethically despicable for Ron to do that.
Down-voting
I don't down-vote unless someone treats another with a lack courtesy or attacks them. I won't down-vote your reply although I strongly disagree.
Dr. Paul will prevail in this argument. To characterize Dr. Paul as being petty, "going to the UN", or another distorted claim is inaccurate. This is a dispute between 2 citizens and this is the only dispute process.
To claim that the buyer of the domain spent money and time out of pure charity with no gain is false. The actions were not forced under duress.
If the buyer was truly charitable he/she would have gracefully turned over the domain to Dr. Paul when he requested it. He/she may even have received some voluntary compensation.
"One resists the invasion of armies; one does not resist the invasion of ideas" Victor Hugo
To be clear, the financial or
To be clear, the financial or charitable intent of the domain name owner is beside the point.
An unauthorized person can't "charitably" promote their favorite band by offering that band's songs for free as that dilutes the rarity and value of the band's intellectual property.
If Ron is claiming that his name "RonPaul" is his intellectual property alone, then any website (including DailyPaul) that uses his name or any of its variants (Dr.Paul, Rep.Paul, etc.) as the foundation for their business--whether that business is charitable, nonprofit, or commercial--is in violation of diluting the impact of Ron Paul's efforts to control his own intellectual property.
he's making money off of
he's making money off of ron's name and public image.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bFxvy9XyUtg
He might not have made any money
or not much money, when you include cost of purchasing the domain and cost of keeping the site up and running. Clearly, he's trying to make lots of money by selling it to the highest bidder ...and he knows that the only reason the domain might be worth lots of money is because of the famous guy whose name and image is all over the site. Considering the entire content of the site is cut n' paste news articles, ads, and Ron Paul paraphernalia for sale and the inflated prices he's asked for the domain, he appears to be a cybersquatter to me.
I betchu he doesn't
and moreover, I hope he doesn't.
Why does our Ron Paul get automatic ownership? Zero sense.
I actually think it's pretty awful that Ron won't legally purchase what he deems valuable. What if the site owner's name were also Ron Paul? It's not that unique a name. Does Ron think he gets to own the site because he's the most famous Ron Paul? Do other Ron Paul's have the same right to sue Ron for using a domain under their names?
Fact is, the site owner bought the domain fairly. Perhaps he makes his living flipping domains like some flip houses. This is a valuable service for a free market society as it ensures domains go to those entrepreneurs who see the true undiscovered value in something.
Fact is, the legal site owner thinks the site has a certain value and isn't willing to sell it to anyone for less than that value. This happens in real estate all the time.
Fact is, Ron doesn't want to pay the price the seller is asking. Again, this happens in real estate all the time. Ron can either wait the seller out or buy elsewhere.
A domain is a piece of real estate. If disgruntled buyers are allowed to sue sellers for asking high prices under the misguided notion that it is the buyer who sets the price for the seller's property, then the world will go completely topsy-turvy. By suing this domain owner, Ron Paul is basically engaging in a variation of eminent domain where the government takes someone else's property and pays them for it at a price the government sets itself.
Pay up or shut up, Ron. It's completely embarrassing to Ron's legacy for him to pretend he has ownership of every domain name past, present, and future that is RonPaul. Does he also have automatic ownership of RonPaul.net? How about RonPaul.me? RonPaul.org? RonPaul.co? RonPaul.tv? Where does it end? What if the domain owner legally changes his own name to Ron Paul, then does Ron Paul believe he can't sue because both their names are Ron Paul?
The more you think about the ridiculous of Ron Paul's assault on this guy through the courts, the more outraged we all should be. I love the man, and he's forever changed my life; but his personal interest in this situation is clearly misguiding his judgement. Unless you're a dunderheaded sycophant, there's just no other way to look at it.
**PS. Though I don't agree with Ron's actions or response to this situation, I totally understand his frustration. You see, some jackass Englishman has been holding my own name as his unused holding page for years and won't sell it because, as he told me, "I like that it's so simple." Dude is telling me he wants to keep my name as his domain (even though he's not using it) because he thinks my name is awesome?! Ugh! I could strangle the dude, but I can't for a moment pretend I have the right to steal his unused domain simply because it shares my rare name.
I changed my mind
At first I agreed with you, but after giving it some thought I changed my mind.
If the current registrants just sat on the domain and did nothing with it except demand money I'd side with them.
> What if the site owner's name were also Ron Paul?
But it isn't.
If the owners were using the domain for a completely different purpose, I'd side with them. Look at the etoy.com case. That disgusts me.
Basically, if the owners of ronpaul.com weren't selling Ron Paul merchandise then I'd side with them. If they were just making commentary about Ron Paul either positive or negative I'd side with them. But what they are doing is selling Ron Paul branded products and the rules of the .COM namespace say that's not OK and they willingly agreed to those terms before they paid $25,000 to acquire the domain.
> A domain is a piece of real estate.
No, it isn't. It's a piece of namespace. It's address space. It's like a phone number, not like a plot of land.
> It's not that unique a name.
I'm not so sure I support the concept of copyright, but I do support the concept of trade mark.
Look at it this way: If someone got McDonalds.com first and wants a million bucks from the fast food restaurant in exchange for it, that's fine. If they start selling things they claim to be McDonanld's products, that's no longer OK. That's tricking people into buying what they think is McDonald's, but is really some substitute.
If ronpaul.com were being used for something other than selling Ron Paul the politician from Texas branded merchandise that would be perfectly fine. Ron Paul the politician from Texas would have no claim to the domain on the basis of trade mark.
> If disgruntled buyers are allowed to sue sellers for asking high prices under the misguided notion that it is the buyer who sets the price for the seller's property, then the world will go completely topsy-turvy.
That's not what's going on here. If you were allowed to sell products and say those products were made by me, then the world really would go topsy-turvy.
> Ron Paul is basically engaging in a variation of eminent domain where the government takes someone else's property and pays them for it at a price the government sets itself.
No, he's asking for the maintainer of the address space to enforce the rules that those who received allocations within the address space voluntarily agreed to when applying for such allocations.
Regardless of what happens, Ron Paul will not be given the web site itself.
> Does he also have automatic ownership of RonPaul.net? How about RonPaul.me? RonPaul.org? RonPaul.co? RonPaul.tv?
No, it depends on the rules set forth by the organizations that allocate address space under .me .org .co and .tv.
> The more you think about the ridiculous of Ron Paul's assault on this guy through the courts, the more outraged we all should be.
As if a man who's famous for saying "No" to far more powerful men than us, when no was was even paying any attention to him, will care.