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: '"
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
That's the funny thing about Capitalism ... wait for it ... the market decides what the price should be. And right now, they have a very unique piece of property that will cost whatever they want to sell it for because they ... wait for it ... own it! But, you know, let's clamor and argue for the defunding and dissolution of the UN right up until it benefits us personally. This is a very surprising and disappointing action from Paul -- a politician who once rarely (if ever) contradicted himself.
From the horse's mouth:
We must stop special interests from violating property rights and literally driving families from their homes, farms and ranches. Today, we face a new threat of widespread eminent domain actions as a result of powerful interests who want to build a NAFTA superhighway through the United States from Mexico to Canada.
We also face another danger in regulatory takings: Through excess regulation, governments deprive property owners of significant value and use of their properties – all without paying ”just compensation.”
Property rights are the foundation of all rights in a free society. Without the right to own a printing press, for example, freedom of the press becomes meaningless. Congress must work to get federal agencies out of these schemes to deny property owners their constitutional rights to life, liberty, and property.
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, right Senator Paul?
My work here is dung.
The son is the Senator.
Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
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.
You have 170,000 people that are known suckers. Hell you would probably have a hit rate of 40-50% on even a 419 scam with those people.
Whenever evil wins, it is only by default: by the moral failure of those who evade the fact that there can be no compromise on basic principles.
-Ayn Rand
[ regardless, she is still a horses ass ]
Anyone going to get control of the title on the slashdot post?
I can see Ron Paul's side of things.
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.
When we first look at this story, it's like "LOL irony afoot. Free market, bitches!"
But after some sober contemplation, one can see the wisdom of the Ron Paul team's position.
I still think that, were Ron Paul to adopt the foreign policy outlook of his son Rand, he would be electable overnight.
Futurist Traditionalism
This is like having options on a stock except when the Ron Paul expires the value of the domain will quickly approach 0 (it may have been different if he would have been elected president, but I doubt his name will live on as a beacon of freedom for decades or centuries). Each day that goes by they are closer to a zero value option. I don't see much value in their mailing list because most of those people probably already gave their information directly to Paul by making campaign donations. If I were the owners I would start drastically reducing the price to make a sale.
GENERATION 27: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation.
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?
Fans: I dont see your name on.... ... ..oh.
The title needs to be updated.
The irony is thick in Ron Paul going to the UN for anything. Personally I feel he should probably get the domain but everything in it is the property of those who Built It, so he should get a domain with no mailing list and no content.
It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
- E. Debs
If there ever was a "king of libertarianism", it would have to be Harry Browne.
Note that many libetarians consider intellectual property to be positively ANTI-capitalism. If this story is true, I'm surprised -- and also disappointed in Ron Paul.
Ron Paul is the "mainstream" libertarian -- that's why you've heard of him and not Harry Browne. IMO, Harry Browne was the thinker.
It would seem that doctrinaire libertarianism would be against this, but Ron Paul actually has a strong case for it because the two core values of libertarianism are you don't have a right to initiate force against another person not harming you or your property (or someone else) and you have no right to engage in fraud. Trademark exists to provide a way to clarify things in certain market transactions and marketing scenarios to prevent fraud. Unlike patents, there is a very powerful libertarian case for trademarks.
But ssssshhh don't go telling most doctrinaire libertarians such things. Their ideology isn't really any more sophisticated than "don't tell me what to do." They are less interested in creating a sustainable free society than maximizing their liberty right here, right now even if that means they know for a fact it'll crush their children (ex. open borders which is a security, cultural and economic nightmare for maintaining a well-ordered society).
What?? A shakedown?
If he does not consider it worth $250,000, then all he has to do is decline the deal. The Free Market works nicely like that.
Let's put politics aside for a bit. Why should _THIS_ particular Ron Paul be allowed to "claim" ronpaul.com over some other person named Ron Paul. That combination of first and last name is not unique (http://howmanyofme.com/people/Ron_Paul/). Why should one person have a stronger claim to a domain name simply because they are more recognized by the public? I could understand the fight for MyBusinessName.com if your business is named MyBusinessName and said name is not some generic word/phrase. But whether it's Ron Paul or Michael Jordan or Joe Schmoe, I just don't see how it would be fair to all the other Ron Paul, Michael Jordan, or Joe Shmoe people.
This is ironic.
Kwisatz Haderach
Sell the spice to CHOAM
This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
With friends like that who needs enemies.
This is nothing but a $250,000 shakedown by his alleged "supporters".
"Back in 2007 we put our lives on hold for you, Ron, and we invested close to 10,000 hours of tears, sweat and hard work into this site at great personal sacrifice."(emphasis mine).
They are actually quite honest: they invested in him(after all, altruism would have been unethical), and now they want their ROI. This isn't a 'friendship' thing, this is a 'VCs fighting with their start-up's CEO over stock options' thing.
Doesn't ICANN normally handle these requests, not the UN?
For those who seek perfection there can be no rest on this side of the grave.
i would love to hear what noted troll and multiple account user roman_mir has to say regarding his beloved ron paul !
lol
I don't see any fraud...right on the main page at ronpaul.com...."This site is run by independent grassroots supporters of Ron Paul."
I can see both sides of this, but I think Dr. Paul is right.
The argument is not about the free market price, it's about who actually owns the property to begin with.
Does Ron Paul own his name? Put yourself in his position. Suppose someone registered $YourName.com, generated some traffic and built a mailing list. Was it their own innovation and hard work that generated the value, or were they merely capitalizing on your fame as a Congressman, author and presidential candidate?
If they had done this with their own domain name, then yes, it would be a marketable asset. IMO, 99% of whatever value they created was because they used Ron Paul's property.
Note, I am VERY disappointed that he would take this to the UN.
What about the website is IP? I don't see why this wasn't taken to the US courts if he thought he should have control.
Retired politicain.
We should instead have enormous amounts of litigation with people suing polluters.
We all know how that ends. We also know how that almost never starts. [Dreaming]Libertarian Ideals[/Dreaming] It is like the phrase: It is better to ask forgiveness than permission. Do wrong, get rich, get caught, get slap on wrist.
"but money is the God of Algiers & Mahomet their prophet." - Rich. O'Bryen June 8th 1786
Please. 250K, for over 4 years of effort by multiple people is hardly 'shakedown' levels. They built something themselves and would like some compensation to turn it over.
People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people
COPIED AND PASTED
I’ll step up and educate you since you are in the dark on this issue.
When ronpaul.com was purchased it came under law governed by ICANN.
There is no way avoiding this FACT even if one was in ignorance of the
law at the time of the domain purchase.
Read the complaint. Tim Martin is seeking undue enrichment, clearly, from the use of Ron Paul’s name. It really is that simple.
When you register a domain, in accordance with ICANN policies, you
warrant that you’re not infringing on the rights of a third party and
also agree to arbitration if a third party submits a claim. This
arbitration process is outlined in what’s called the Uniform Domain-Name
Dispute-Resolution Policy, or UDRP, and includes certain criteria such
as trademark infringement and “bad faith”, both of which RP seems to be
focusing on in his UDRP complaint. The WIPO, a UN agency, is one of
several organizations authorized by ICANN to offer this arbitration
service for a fee.
Ron Paul is the owner of RON PAUL U.S. trademark. Ron Paul has
acquired rights in the mark by virtue of it’s use within the United
States, including a large volume of sales of Dr. Paul’s books.
The RON PAUL mark has achieved a secondary meaning associated with Ron
Paul sufficient to establish common law trademark rights. RON PAUL has
long been associated with Dr. Paul’s books, articles, public
appearances, and political commentary.”
On the 7th page of Ron Paul’s complaint. The fun part begins on the 7th page:
http://www.ronpaul.com/images/Complaint.pdf
If it’s true that he owns the trademark RON PAUL,
he absolutely has the right to take back RonPaul.com. Do you think that
if someone happened to buy Walmart.com before walmart had a chance to
get it that they wouldn’t be able to get it back?
And for those that are complaining about this whole UN thing.
Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) is the standard .com can be purchased from anyone
international (since domains and
around the globe) means of re-acquiring domain names that business and
individuals own trademark to. The fact that they are associated with the
UN is a mute point.
Name me another organization that works to give brand owners back the ownership of the domain associated with their brand.
As a graphic and web designer, I am familiar with UDRP and had to
submit a request with them for a client that needed a website back that
they held the trademark rights to. So am I somehow evil for working with
a group that is associated with the UN?
In fact, a quick google search came up with this:
“The UDRP is followed by ALL REGISTRARS of the following generic .aero, .asia, .biz., .cat, .COM, .coop, .info, .jobs, .mobi, .museum, .name, .net, .org, .pro, .tel, .travel and .xxx. The UDRP has been adopted by all accredited gTLD domain-name
top-level domain (gTLD) names:
registrars. Thus the UDRP is incorporated into every gTLD domain name
Registration Agreement, which is the agreement between the accredited
registrar and the registrant, providing for registration of a domain
name. ”
Emphasis added to ALL REGISTRARS and .COM.
And as far as I can tell, there are no alternatives to using UDRP to
recover domains names in disputes such as this. So to push back on the
use of UDRP as somehow against free market or against Ron Paul’s
character or integrity is a disservice to the man and the legacy he’s
given us.
GIVE THE MAN HIS DOMAIN.
Obvious future result is obvious
Ron Paul is not a capitalist, he is a politician.
It can be fun watching him stir the pot but never forget he stirs the pot for his own political aims.
I prefer listening to Les Paul, maybe even Rand Paul, but Ron is a bit of a nutter.
No brain, no pain.
It would be foolish to judge the truths a man believes in by the apparent weakness or hypocrisy of that man.
If a man claimed monogamy in marriage was good for society, but due to his own moral failure, had multiple partners, would we then conclude that adultery was best for all men?
It would be best that we use our minds and experience to find truth and not look for the man who looks the best to decide what truth is best for us. Otherwise, we will just be sheep for the media to direct.
"With patience a ruler may be persuaded, and a soft tongue will break a bone."
A Libertarian refusing to pay the price borne by the market and instead appealing to regulators, no less than the villainous UNITED NATIONS, for an intervention? How can he not see that this lays waste to his entire political philosophy?
(%i1) factor(777353);
(%o1) 777353
No, first because the issue wasn't bare "names" but Microsoft asserting its right to its trademark within the commercial domain (computer software) to which that trademark applies. Trademarks are names, but not all names are trademarks.
But more importantly, Microsoft didn't win the case, they reached an out of court settlement where they paid the high school student for the domain name with a combination of cash covering all of his expenses related to building the domain and a variety of other goods and services.
5... 4... 3... 2...
aren't domain disputes solved at WIPO? Where else should he go?
Somebody else *does* own $MyName.com. Somebody who works in the same field as me, and could easily be confused for me by a Google search, which is actually directly harmful to my own job prospects (as opposed to Ron Paul, whose supporters are using it to rally support for him as a politician). But I'm not crying foul to the UN.
Perhaps he has no need at all for the mailing list they think is worth all the money, and simply wants to unbundle. Fierce negotiation about things like that is the norm in business deals. You want to sell me the entire album, I just want the single. Who is being a hypocrite? Who needs a political mailing list post-retirement?
Why guess when you can know? Measure!
I think part of his concern, is that RonPaul.com is continuuing to be active politically, and not always with Ron Paul's views in mind.
Thus there is concern about it being used to use Ron Paul's name to convey messages he doesn't agree with.
And I think that's a fairly legitimate claim.
***
How about I register StephenColbert.com, run a fan site for several years, and then start sending out Republican propoganda. Would Stephen Colbert have a claim for that domain?
Trademark wise, ICANN has said yes.
Who needs a political mailing list post-retirement?
His son Rand....
Fierce negotiation about things like that is the norm in business deals
Perhaps you missed the part where he's avoiding said fierce negotiation by running to the UN...
People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people
A free market guy goes to the united nations for help to acquire something that doesn't belong to him? Are libertarians ok with this? I'm not.
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
Operative phrase: "... without his permission...". Didn't the fact that he didn't do anything until now imply that he was giving them his permission?
"Somebody else *does* own $MyName.com. Somebody who works in the same field as me, "
That sort of sucks, but is $YourName eq $TheirName or are they simply capitalizing on $YourName for their own profit?
If it was the latter, I think you'd have a legitimate claim that you should get the domain for a small fee.
he should have trademarked his name.
This may not necessarily be fraudulent, but should someone be allowed to appropriate your well-known name and use it for purposes that may or may not overlap with your goals? It may not be fraudulent, but it falls within the range of things trademark is meant to restrict and can reasonably restrict under a libertarian regime. For example, it would be one thing to protect "Ford Auto Owners Club" as a non-trademark infringement. However if a bunch of hobbyists got together and created "Ford Custom Kits" under a libertarian regime that would be sufficiently close to the initiation of fraud by virtue of trying to play off someone else's name to win business that Ford would have a legitimate right under a libertarian regime to sue.
I believe the argument comes down to "prior art", and that Ron Paul established his trademark and brand long before the owners of ronpaul.org and ronpaul.com.
I love how the guy who rails against bureaucracy is asking a giant bureaucracy to FORCE AMERICANS AGAINST THEIR WILL TO GIVE UP THEIR PRIVATE PROPERTY!!!
Hypocrite is too easy of a word to apply here...
Isn't this a clear case of frivolous litigation?
Context: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frivolous_litigation
They offered the site for free as a gift, he refused and now wants to get it without paying the site's worth (as set by the site creators). So basically he is fighting for his right to not call it a gift. This is a huge waste of public resources, the same public resources libertarians insist we shouldn't have access to.
But... the future refused to change.
He's managed to paint the government as a corrupt agency of fat-cat Democrats
I wish this where true. He spent the bulk of the time during the debates and afterwards complaining the problem was Republicans. I agree with you about being glad he is retiring. I wish they would all "retire" after 2 or 3 terms.
Ah, the whole term-limit thing... you see, the problem is that the lobbyiests and staffers quite well *do not* have term limits, and most legistlation is written by them these days. The head politician is just a figurehead, a "brand".
Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting
Appeal to Hypocrisy fallacy to the extreme.
I read your link because it sounded like a bunch of crap to me. In the comments, there is this:
1. Ayn Rand died of heart failure, not lung cancer.
2. Ayn Rand did not get her name from her typewriter. The exact origin of her last name has not been unequivocally proven, but research now suggests that Rand is actually an abbreviation of her given last name.
3. Ayn Rand was financially capable of paying for her own medical expenses but made use of the Medicare and Social Security systems as this was in her rational self interest. She did not say "it was wrong for everyone else to do so." She addresses the issue here:
http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/government_grants_and_scholarships.html
Some people die at 25 and aren't buried until 75. -Benjamin Franklin
The domain is registered in Panama, where else would you have him go but the UN?
Mind the frickin' laser...
The one with the trademark gets the rights, if you are profiting by selling goods representative of the trademark holder.
Any old registrar he wants to register his OWN TheRealRonPaul.com site. Him going to the UN rather than just accepting that the market price is what they are asking is the problem.
People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people
Someone finally got it right
Mod parent up
To be fair, you seem to be either 1) a doctrinaire right wing shill, or more charitably 2) not thinking through the economics business cases.
Charles Ponzi promised payouts on profits from an arbitrage business that did no actual arbitrage (i.e. a fraud).
Social Security works on the same assumption as most private retirement systems: money is invested in an economic entity, and payouts will come from future economic growth of that entity. Money invested with the US Government adds value by - in aggregate - providing an infrastructure within which profitable activity can occur, ideally leading to a larger tax base from which to pay future Social Security obligations.
As it has turned out, the economics work for Social Security, and based on demographic projections, will continue to... provided that hucksters in the private economy don't continue to destroy more value than we can create. The economics cannot work for a Ponzi scheme, by its very methodology.
Luke, help me take this mask off
why ron paul's followers are so detached from reality.
Just sell/license it to another guy named "Ron Paul" and change the content to something unrelated to the former Congressman. Then if this Ron Paul wants the domain, he buy it off of someone with unarguably the same rights to the name that he has.
I went and did some actual research and here is what I found.
According to whois, RonPaul.com was registered in 2000 while RonPaul.org was registered in 1999. The current owner of RonPaul.org is DN Capital Inc, a company based in Panama, while RonPaul.com is owned by WKF Corp, another company based in Panama.
This right here is sending up red flags. A "fan site" whose domain name is owned by some corporation in Panama? This isn't some Hary Alderson in Vermont who owns the domain name, as one might expect from a fan site. It is some company in Panama who, for all we know, may or may not be a shell company.
Second, Ron Paul DID NOT go to "The UN" for this, he went to the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center, whose JOB it is to settle disputes like this. There is nothing hypocritical about this. WIPO would exist absent the UN for this purpose. He may not LIKE the UN, but he is working within the system as it currently exists even though he would like that system changed. I don't like the city government where I live and wish it were set up differently, but you bet your butt I go to them when I have a problem or need something taken care of under their jurisdiction.
RP wanted only the domain name, yet the "owners" of the site wanted to sell him the whole thing for a huge chunk of cash? That's not "Fan site", that's "trying to hit up a public figure for money and cash out". Wanting to sell the whole nine yards so eagerly, and for so much, doesn't sound like any "fan site" I've ever heard of.
Sorry, the owners of ronpaul.com are looking awfully shady. Say what you want about Dr. Paul, the owners of the domain are not looking so innocent and it is looking that Dr, Paul may have a decent case for cybersquatting. We simply don't have enough information to be 100% sure. Considering Dr. Paul's past, I'm tending toward giving him the benefit of the doubt for now, but I would certainly like more information before definitively siding one way or the other on this. There is probably a lot of details that we don't know about.
She paid for those benefits with her taxes, why shouldn't she take advantage of them? I don't see any hypocrisy there. She is still justified in arguing that she got a bad deal.
Ditto with Ron Paul. As long as the UN exists (or other such organizations), he is perfectly justified in using them. After all, he could be a target of the organization, so he might as well take advantage of it. That isn't inconsistent with wanting to get rid of it.
Rand Paul is the anitchrist. Just what does that make Ron? "Can you guess my name?"
My karma is bad. Don't get too close!!!
http://ronpaulflix.com/2013/02/ron-paul-has-not-gone-to-the-un-to-strong-arm-ronpaul-com/ [ronpaulflix.com] This is misleading and an attempt to make people think exactly what everyone is at the moment.
So the New World Order, AKA global government, AKA not only BIG government, but currently the BIGGEST kind of government possible, orchestrated through the U.N. is a GOOD thing now?
Or is it that Paul, like every other politician, is seduced by doing things the easy, instead of the right, way?
Precedence says that those with the deepest pockets own any name they lay claim to, despite hundreds and even thousands of years of familial ownership of the name. That's why one of the McDonalds clans had to give up their their domain name to the McDonalds burger chain.
THINK! It's patriotic