The Daily Paul has been archived. Please see the continuation of the Daily Paul at Popular

Thank you for a great ride, and for 8 years of support!

Comment: Hmmm...

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: No (see in situ)


"Cybersquatting (also known as domain squatting), according to the United States federal law known as the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act, is registering, trafficking in, or using a domain name with bad faith intent to profit from the goodwill of a trademark belonging to someone else. The cybersquatter then offers to sell the domain to the person or company who owns a trademark contained within the name at an inflated price.,/b>"

Some more points:

-- Legal rulings are often unpredictable
-- fansite domains have been taken away (madonna, kevin spacey, etc)
-- Although Ron Paul is aware of the domain neither he or one of his representative have pursued the domain. It is persons from that have proffered an asking price so it is OBVIOUS that their intention is to make money off of Ron Paul's notoriety and fame. And the rapidly falling asking price is evidence that is not making money and that they are trying to profit excessively.

I don't think Ron Paul would use the courts to pursue the domain. And I do not think the domain "" is in any way necessary for Ron to achieve internet success towards his goal. It would only seem a bit narcissistic. Ron wants to promote liberty and small govt... not himself.

My point was that IF he were to pursue the domain name then legal precedence is in his favor.

Fansites have had their domains taken away. "Misleading" is not in the legal definition. Increased profits from a websites activity increases the chance the domain will be taken away because the legal definition specifically makes profits off the goodwill and fame of another part of the accusation. Poor profits with an inflated asking price for the domain is obvious in this instance. And even more "damning" is that the owners of did the proffering while dramatically dropping the price after receiving no response (profit motive). They are gold digging....

Again, my point is legal precedence, not my opinion of what is right and wrong....

~wobbles but doesn't fall down~