Comment: You people have no forward vision

(See in situ)


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...)