Comment: I'm currently going through a variation on this same ransom

I have a business which has a unique name which is widely KNOWN in the community and was established through a decade of advertisement and word of mouth good will. The business has an utterly unique building, as distinct and associated to the business (to anyone who has ever seen it) as Ron Paul's face is to himself. I bought the business from its prior owner, along with all internet rights, BUT THE URL HAD BEEN POACHED WHEN THE PRIOR OWNER MISTAKENLY LET LAPSE THE DOMAIN NAME.

It would be bad enough if the poachers just held the URL for ransom with a clear "for sale" placeholder image (implying I was out of business and making it hard for anyone to find out otherwise). But they did something far worse: they have COPIED the old website, with a picture of my business building on the front page, so almost everyone -- including Google -- concludes they are the legitimate original business BUT HAVE NOT BOTHERED TO UPDATE ANYTHING, INCLUDING THE WEBSITE IN MORE THAN A DECADE. And they are hiding behind an LLC in a distant state. I could sue them -- but at what cost in terms of time and money and energy? Or I could pay the ransom -- and from a pure "business" standpoint I've been told I should. But I regard that as furthering evil but making evil, once again, profitable. Or I can undertake the expense of changing my own name and slowly re-educating the public? Or?

Anyway, the people behind ronpaul.com are displaying bad will and -- legal or not -- bad morals. Why don't they pull Ron Paul's visage if he doesn't want it there? We all know why -- their disclaimer at the bottom notwithstanding. Until/unless you've been personally stung in one of these situations you might find it difficult to relate.

MORALLY: IF YOUR NAME IS ESTABLISHED THROUGH TIME AND PUBLIC RECOGNITION IT IS *IMMORAL* FOR SOME THIRD PARTY TO POACH YOUR NAME FOR PROFIT OR TO MISREPRESENT YOU. A DISCLAIMER WHICH MANY WILL MISS DOES NOT CORRECT THIS.

The "laws" with regard to URLs are established by bureaucrats who haven't generally had to face the results of their "legalizing" something which is morally reprehensible because it causes injury o misrepresentation to the authentic holder of that name and image.