Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Ron Paul Asks UN For Help Geting Control of RonPaul.com Domain From Fans

Posted by samzenpus on from the strange-bedfellows dept.

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: '"

44 of 611 comments (clear)

  1. Welcome to Capitalism by eldavojohn · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.
    1. Re:Welcome to Capitalism by theedgeofoblivious · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Free market, my ass.

      You hypocrite.

    2. Re:Welcome to Capitalism by vlm · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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
    3. Re:Welcome to Capitalism by sumdumass · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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..

    4. Re:Welcome to Capitalism by Soluzar · · Score: 4, Insightful

      At least one famous person shares my name. Which one of us owns the dot com rights?

    5. Re:Welcome to Capitalism by Sarten-X · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.
    6. Re:Welcome to Capitalism by Jason+Levine · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.
    7. Re:Welcome to Capitalism by h4rr4r · · Score: 4, Interesting

      So you believe his name is unique?
      No one else has that name on Earth?

      What if I want to make a website about how he is a hypocrite? Why can I not buy ronpaul.com and make that my site about his hypocrisy?

      How about instead of more regulation we simply let the free market solve this?

    8. Re:Welcome to Capitalism by rudy_wayne · · Score: 5, Informative

      This is a very surprising and disappointing action from Paul -- a politician who once rarely (if ever) contradicted himself.

      Well you haven't been paying attention.

        As a member of congress he has repeatedly added amendments to spending bills giving millions to his home district. Then when the bill comes up for a vote, knowing that the bill is going to pass, he votes against the bill. That way he gets millions in pork for his constituents and at the same time can claim he voted against a wasteful spending bill.

    9. Re:Welcome to Capitalism by DarkOx · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I have been a Paul support and I disagree. I would say unless what they are putting on the site is untrue, in which case its libel and is why we have civil courts, there is no reason they should have to turn over the name or be expected to do so without compensation. Compensation should be the price they set as its currently their property.

      You can't call them squatters either they are actually using the domain, have real current content there, and its even related to the subject the name would lead you to expect. What they are doing is more or less the antithesis of domain squatting.

      Really I am disappointed in Paul over this one in a big way. I don't see anything wrong with what the people on the site are doing. Actually Paul should be grateful because they are basically promoting him.

      --
      Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    10. Re:Welcome to Capitalism by ceoyoyo · · Score: 5, Insightful

      They're not squatters. They run an active web site which is about a public, political figure.

    11. Re:Welcome to Capitalism by pixelpusher220 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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 :-D
    12. Re:Welcome to Capitalism by rudy_wayne · · Score: 4, Informative

      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.)

      You would be absolutely 100% correct, IF the domain ronpaul.com was being used for some other purpose. Maybe there's a plumber named Ron Paul who wants to put up a website. Or an accountant. Or a guy named Ron Paul wants to sell auto parts on the Internet. Those are all legitimate.

      But that's not the case here. The domain is being used exclusively for activities relating to Ron Paul the congressman from Texas. This is exactly the definition of cybersquatting.

    13. Re:Welcome to Capitalism by Stone+Rhino · · Score: 4, Interesting

      No, there's actually a documented history of names being used for other purposes. This kind of thing has been going on for over a decade. FordReallySucks.com is all about the quest of big companies to squelch critical sites that use their name.

      http://www.fordreallysucks.com/more_info.html

      --


      Remember, there were no nuclear weapons before women were allowed to vote.
    14. Re:Welcome to Capitalism by BasilBrush · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    15. Re:Welcome to Capitalism by BasilBrush · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Yes, it's the most delicious piece of libertarian hypocrisy since Ayn Rand took Social Security payments and Medicare benefits under the name of Ann O'Connor.

    16. Re:Welcome to Capitalism by D'Arque+Bishop · · Score: 5, Informative

      Citations provided:

      Ron Paul's Hypocrisy on Earmarks, Pork-Barrel Spending

      Ron Paul, Big-Government Libertarian

    17. Re:Welcome to Capitalism by nedlohs · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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?

    18. Re:Welcome to Capitalism by NatasRevol · · Score: 4, Informative

      Really? Do you even know what the term cybersquatter means? Cause you might want to go look it up.

      Just because his name is Ron Paul does not mean he gets to force ronpaul.com to be handed over to him. REGARDLESS OF WHAT THE WEBSITE IS ABOUT.

      It doesn't matter if it's a pro-Ron Paul website, a farcical Ron Paul website, or pointing out all of his errors.

      He didn't register it. He didn't create it. He didn't update it. He didn't do anything for it.

      It's not his.

      --
      There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
    19. Re:Welcome to Capitalism by Sique · · Score: 4, Insightful

      No, it should belong to the Catholic Church, which does the most business under the "Madonna" label, by far exceeding the singer's revenue.

      --
      .sig: Sique *sigh*
    20. Re:Welcome to Capitalism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    21. Re:Welcome to Capitalism by Dishevel · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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?
    22. Re:Welcome to Capitalism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      This article makes the point why this is hypocritical:
      http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-ford/ayn-rand-and-the-vip-dipe_b_792184.html

      Ayn took the money after criticizing the programs and making the implication that people who took the money were weak. Self interest wasn't her only tenet.

      Also, the other implication is that she took the money under a different name to avoid looking hypocritical. That may also be self interest but it also points to a failure to live up to her openly espoused philosophies. It would be interesting to find out how much money she had amassed during her lifetime and whether she had the option to *not* take the money and still be well off. I think that would be particularly hypocritical but I'm unsure of how she did financially.

    23. Re:Welcome to Capitalism by Gription · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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?

    24. Re:Welcome to Capitalism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    25. Re:Welcome to Capitalism by Holi · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Bad argument in the Mikerowsoft case as they settled and it did not go to court. In the end Mike Rowe won, it was Microsoft that walked away with the black eye. They origianlly offered him $10, in the end he got Microsoft to pay all of the expenses that Rowe had incurred including setting up a new site at and redirecting traffic to MikeRoweforums.com. Additionally Microsoft provided Rowe with a subscription to the Microsoft Developer Network, an all expenses paid trip for him and his family to the Microsoft Research Tech Fest at their headquarters in Redmond, Washington, training for Microsoft certification and an Xbox with a selection of games.

      --
      Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
    26. Re:Welcome to Capitalism by guynorton · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Rand wrote in "The Virtue of Selfishness".....that accepting any government controls is “delivering oneself into gradual enslavement.”

      Also....Rand is one of three women the Cato Institute calls founders of American libertarianism. The other two, Rose Wilder Lane and Isabel “Pat” Paterson, both rejected Social Security benefits on principle. Lane, with whom Rand corresponded for several years, once quit an editorial job in order to avoid paying Social Security taxes. The Cato Institute says Lane considered Social Security a “Ponzi fraud” and “told friends that it would be immoral of her to take part in a system that would predictably collapse so catastrophically.” Lane died in 1968....

      There's an even greater irony here in that she needed health care benefits >> Rand also believed that the scientific consensus on the dangers of tobacco was a hoax. By 1974, the two-pack-a-day smoker, then 69, required surgery for lung cancer. And it was at that moment of vulnerability that she succumbed to the lure of collectivism.

    27. Re:Welcome to Capitalism by Joe+Snipe · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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...
    28. Re:Welcome to Capitalism by Burning1 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I found a source on the internet quoting the worth of Ayn Rand's estate at ~$500,000 at the time of her death. It's unclear how much of that was tied up in property, how much of it was the value of her writings, and how much of it was liquid. What is clear is that her declining health and battle with cancer could have had a significant impact on her wealth.

      So, Ayn Rand spent most of her life smoking, and when she was diagnosed with Cancer, she turned to Medicare to protect her estate.

      Do you know what Ayn would have called someone who made devastating life decisions and then turned to the government for salvation?

  2. Typical Libertarian by Telecommando · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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
    1. Re:Typical Libertarian by h4rr4r · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Why is this modded down?
      This is the absolute truth. He likes the free market until it impacts him. If he does not like the price he is free to not buy this product, but instead he wants some outside actor to force this person to give up their property.

      This is pretty common from what I see of libertarians.

    2. Re:Typical Libertarian by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 4, Interesting

      What I like is that they are fighting over something that is purely a creation of ICANN: there is nothing magic about DNS that makes domain names globally authoritative(and, unlike with fiat currency, it isn't even legally troublesome to make your own, if you can get anybody to accept them), ICANN just runs the nameservers that people give a damn about.

      If they wanted to take this out to the marketplace and settle it like men, they could just each provide an IP and let their respective supporters modify their hosts files or local DNS records according to their preferences, as consumers, about which ronpaul.com offered a superior ronpaul.com product and/or service.

      It's like watching two gold-bugs fighting over a $100 'federal reserve note'...

    3. Re:Typical Libertarian by LordLimecat · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Its modded down because its a broad generalization that cant possibly be made honestly unless he has actually see this behavior from a statistically significant number of libertarians. Its similar to BS like "All republicans are racist" (they arent), or "all Democrats are communist" (they arent), and should be modded down as such.

  3. Isnt he the "king of libertarians"? by Redmancometh · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Isnt he the "king of libertarians"? by Sique · · Score: 5, Insightful

      As Alfred Adler once observed: It's easier to fight for your principles than to live according to them.

      --
      .sig: Sique *sigh*
  4. The One True RICH Ron Paul by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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?

    1. Re:The One True RICH Ron Paul by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 5, Funny

      Being a libertarian is like being a Highlander. There Can Be Only One.

      In the case of a trademark dispute, the disputants are brought to the 'marketplace of ideas' where they compete until only one is left alive, at which point he absorbs the market share of the others.

      It's pretty fucking epic, actually.

    2. Re:The One True RICH Ron Paul by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 4, Funny

      Being a libertarian is like being a Highlander.

      I'm puzzled, is this an incitements to go after libertarians' necks, or an incitement to have them dress in kilts and dance to vigorous, upbeat tunes?

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    3. Re:The One True RICH Ron Paul by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 4, Funny

      Thank you, ambassador Kosh! That clears it up.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    4. Re:The One True RICH Ron Paul by rossdee · · Score: 4, Funny

      So is Adrian Paul from the same family?

  5. Cant see your name on it by NettiWelho · · Score: 4, Funny
    Ron: This domain belongs to me.

    Fans: I dont see your name on.... ... ..oh.

  6. attention: alanis morissette by jollyreaper · · Score: 4, Funny

    This is ironic.

    --
    Kwisatz Haderach
    Sell the spice to CHOAM
    This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
  7. Re:With friends like that by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

  8. Re:Part of free markets is brand protection by Chirs · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.