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.
Want DP delivered to your inbox daily? Subscribe here:
Content of posts and comments on the Daily Paul represent the opinions of the original posters, and are not endorsed, approved, or otherwise representative of the opinions of the Daily Paul, its owner, site moder