Slashdot Mirror
Ron Paul Asks UN For Help Geting Control of RonPaul.com Domain From Fans
First time accepted submitter thoughtfulbloke writes "Ron Paul has gone to the United Nations' World Intellectual Property Organization to seize control of the RonPaul.com domain from the fans that built it up, rather than purchase it. From the article: 'The proprietors of RonPaul.com say they reached out to the retired politicain and offered him RonPaul.org as a free gift, but if he "insisted" on owning RonPaul.com then they would sell it to him. There was a catch, though. It would be part of a "liberty package" with the site's 170,000 person mailing list for... wait for it... $250,000. They think the price is totally worth it: '"
Free market, my ass.
You hypocrite.
They're all for "free market" economics until it actually impacts them personally. Then suddenly they want government intervention and special treatment.
What a hypocrite.
Beta sux! Join the Slashcott! http://hardware.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=4760465&cid=46173047
I actually liked Ron Paul right up to the point of reading this. Anyone who preaches smaller government, less control, more personal freedom, and a truly free economy and does this...Well that person is a hypocritical 2 faced..politician.
Property rights are the foundation of all rights in a free society unless the property we're talking about are domain names that you feel are yours
I think this is unintentionally very funny because the domain name is his name, which is presumably his property. Now if he was trying to steal "campaignforliberty.com" that would be an interesting argument assuming they weren't just domain squatters who registered well after the PR campaign started.
If there is a lesson, don't start up a 3rd party site with a name consisting of nothing but the 1st party name. Even "unofficialsupportforronpaul.com" would have been more morally justifiable than just taking the dude's name and slapping a dotcom on the end.
"Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
Just because the function of ridding domains of squatters is at the UN does not mean the rest of the UN's operations or conduct is legit.
Look at the LA cop thing in California in which the have shot up 3 separate scenes and wounded several completely innocent people trying to execute a criminal instead of arresting him and going to court for justice. I can talk about how much of a thug the cops are, how they are completely incompetent scared little bitches ignoring the constitutional right of due process hell bent on inflicting personal revenge on the ex cop who killed one of their own and claims to have information proving they were in the wrong for his termination and acted abhorrently in several criminal cases, but I would still call them to report my home was burglarized. That wouldn't be some giant conflict of interest or reversal of anything else I stood for..
At least one famous person shares my name. Which one of us owns the dot com rights?
Property rights are the foundation of all rights in a free society unless the property we're talking about are domain names that you feel are yours
I think this is unintentionally very funny because the domain name is his name, which is presumably his property. Now if he was trying to steal "campaignforliberty.com" that would be an interesting argument assuming they weren't just domain squatters who registered well after the PR campaign started.
If there is a lesson, don't start up a 3rd party site with a name consisting of nothing but the 1st party name. Even "unofficialsupportforronpaul.com" would have been more morally justifiable than just taking the dude's name and slapping a dotcom on the end.
So you're saying there's only one person named Ron Paul in the entire world?
And that just about sums up my feelings, as well.
Ron Paul's a populist politician. He's managed to paint the government as a corrupt agency of fat-cat Democrats, by ignoring the measurable good of government programs and focusing only on how much they cost. He's made the Federal Reserve a scapegoat for everything wrong with the economy, and thanks to the magic of psychology-driven Austrian economics, he can just forget about the economic problems before the Fed existed, because they were just so long ago.
This is yet another chapter in the tale of Ron Paul's subtle hypocrisy. He'll complain about globalization and fight against having any global authorities interfering in private citizens' lives, yet he has no problem running to a global authority to interfere in other people's lives on his behalf.
I'm thrilled the guy's retired (for now). Here's hoping it's permanent, and that his equally-populist son follows quickly.
You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
How is the domain automatically his if it is his name? What if the domain was registered by someone else bearing the name "Ron Paul"? Would Politician Ron Paul be able to wrest control of the domain from the not-as-well-known Ron Paul based solely on name recognition? And what if not-as-well-known Ron Paul wanted to sell the domain name? Should he be limited in selling it to someone whose name is "Ron Paul" or can he sell it to anything (for example, a fan of politician Ron Paul).
(Not saying that's what happened here. Just pointing out that having a name isn't the same thing as automatically having rights to a domain name with said name.)
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
They're not squatters. They run an active web site which is about a public, political figure.
This isn't domain squatting. They've been actively using the site for multiple elections expressly to promote Ron Paul. These are *his* ardent supporters who did this on their own dime and if he wants to control the benefits of that...guess what, pay up. They aren't asking for millions, just a paltry 250K. Spread over 4 years over multiple people. It's hardly trying to 'cash in' on something.
Ron Paul is both hypocritical here and right on the money. Which is that his libertarian views are that he's allowed to do whatever he wants...including suing people or running to governmental agencies for help.
Libertarianism itself is hypocritical...and it's downright fun to watch the ardent supporters get a lesson in that...
People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people
He needs to control his brand, and to own it outright. Thus, he benefits not only from having ownership, but having his legal right made clear.
Of course he benefits from having ownership...but that doesn't necessarily give him the right to take it away from the current owners. They bought the domain name, they built the site, they generated the traffic, and now he wants it arbitrarily transferred to him? That doesn't seem right.
But Microsoft isn't pretending to be a libertarian. This isn't about whether legislation or the power of the UN can get him the domain name without paying for it. It's whether Ron Paul is a hypocrite or not.
And yes, he is being a hypocrite. He want's a governmental body to take someone else's property off them rather than buy it in a free market.
How is it hypocritical for someone who proclaims that people should act in their own rational self interest to do something that is in their own self interest?
No, it should belong to the Catholic Church, which does the most business under the "Madonna" label, by far exceeding the singer's revenue.
No one "fears" these hallucinations and masturbatory fantasies you call "ideas". We recognize them as the laughable fictions of the spoiled, the immature, and those with little experience with human interaction. Sometimes when you scream and cry to be taken seriously we find it upsetting and annoying and want to apply some constructive corporal punishment.
The domain is being used exclusively for activities relating to Ron Paul the congressman from Texas. This is exactly the definition of cybersquatting.
No.
Cybersquatting is not what you think it is.
From liked article.
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.
I do not see bad faith here. They created the site to help Ron Paul get elected. (Fail 1)
They have a huge mailing list of people interested in hearing from Ron Paul. This list has value the asking price is probably not far from fair. (Fail 2)
Ron Paul should stop being a bitch and work a deal with these people.
Ron Paul runs to have something that people created to benefit him, that has inherent value that came from their work to be taken from them by an international organization that he believes is bad and should go away.
Fuck Ron Paul.
Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
Back in the 90s the company owning the rights to the Archie comics went after "Veronica.org". A guy setup the site because he had a toddler named Veronica and he posted a couple pictures. It finally fell out in the guy's favor...
http://news.cnet.com/2100-1023-220240.html
If being named the same as a site gave you rights, could you imagine the dust-up for johnsmith.com?
Because she spent her entire life saying people who accepted help from the government (or anyone) were parasites.
In the end, Ayn Rand because the kind of parasite she spent her life waging jihad against. Yet she never apologized or admitted she was wrong. She simply sponged up those Big Gubment welfare checks.
So that's fine, use it. And keep complaining about said benefits existence, it's a valid argument. But by taking those benefits, you can no longer argue that those who do take advantage of said benefits are a drain on our society without being a drain yourself.
Sometimes, life itself is sarcasm...