Slashdot Mirror
WIPO Panel Says Ron Paul Guilty of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking
An anonymous reader writes "Ron Paul lost his two cybersquatting complaints against RonPaul.com and RonPaul.org. In the case of RonPaul.org, Paul was been found guilty of 'reverse domain name hijacking'. A reverse domain name hijacking finding means that the arbitration panel believes the case was filed in bad faith, resulting in the abuse of the administrative process. The panel ruled this way since Paul filed the case after the owner of RonPaul.org had already offered to give him the domain for free. The panel also ruled against Paul for the RonPaul.com domain name."
I may lol.
Paul filed the case after the owner of RonPaul.org had already offered to give him the domain for free.
Why was Ron Paul trying to use the force of government to coerce someone into doing something they were already going to do?
As one of those libertarian types, clearly he felt that anything being offered for free was a trap, and therefore imposing government regulation on the original owner to have it legislated into his ownership instead was totally in tune with his stance on avoiding regulation on the free market, and all that other delusional crap he spouts to con the masses without actually believing any of it.
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha.
I predict the Pauls will use this for political gain. All it takes is a bit of spin:
Clearly the "official" establishment is failing to support the little guy who just wants to use his own name. Because they obviously aren't catering to the desires of a particularly-vocal individual, they must of course just be a tool for oppression by the Big Government. After all, what good are these "rules" and "procedures" when they hinder the industrious and innovative people building their own future, and instead help the lazy people just using others' names?
You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
He was being a hypocritical bastard.
FTA "Respondent offered to give the Domain Name ronpaul.org to Complainant for no charge, with no strings attached,"
They offered to give it to him for free if he didnt want to pay for the .com domain. There are strings attached, namely that he wouldn't be able to get the .com domain....
Priced as the market will bear, bitch.
...it doesn't actually look like Paul is guilty of anything but refusing to accept a settlement that was unreasonable in the first place. I already didn't trust the WIPO before, and this certainly didn't help improve their image in my eyes.
In SOVIET RUSSIA... erm...NSA AMERICA, the Internet logs onto YOU!
Free market will fix that! There's always www.ronpaul.bs or www.ronpaul.museum available.
Here is what I posted in the last thread on this:
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.
So is cognitivedissonance.com. Both seem so much more... appropriate now.
As one of those libertarian types, clearly he felt that anything being offered for free was a trap....
and anything that was being offered for money was too expensive, even though he really wanted it, so he should get it for frees.
You're special forces then? That's great! I just love your olympics!
You know how it is. First, they start hijacking domain names, and then just a few years later, they start flying them into buildings. Stop Ron Paul now, before it's too late!
because it makes him feel like a real man, that's why.
if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
What i find amusing is that Ron P. is perfectly willing to use the system ( same one he usually decries as anti-competitive, stifling to initiative and free enterprise) in order to force registered owner of a good ( the domains) to give them up for free. Apparently a different set of rules apply to Ron Paul.
Considering recent events, I bet if this concerned a liberal instead of a libertarian, ICE would seize the domain a declare it as belonging to that liberal politician and the justices would turn a blind eye on it.
It is a misnomer to call this hijacking because someone in Ron Paul's position would have had reason to believe that he actually had the right to own that domain name.
As the exorcist said, "possession is 9/10 of the law."
Shouldn't taking someone's domain "by force" just be domain name hijacking?
An opponent of the Neocons got found guilty for something by the legal system put in place by the Neocons?? Who would have ever expected that.
Our domain name system is totally fucked. If I want to go to Ron Paul's website of course I will try RonPaul.com, and I certainly don't want to go to some scammer's website when I type in that address. The system is broken. We didn't build it to serve the interests of some millionaire scammers, so why are we tolerating this nonsense. Just because we don't like Ron Paul? This is insane.
Paul's record shows that he is nothing but a bigoted, self-centered, hypocritical opportunist.
And as a libertarian, do you live in a world that was not destroyed in a nuclear conflagration in no small part because the UN was set up to allow the the US and the USSR to posture, manoeuvre and otherwise vent their respective spleens in a semi-harmless way ... If you continue to breathe, "then you are a hypocrite according to your own definition."
tell the ICANN to bugger off and set up your own DNS servers, etc. The problem with that it that nobody would ever hook up to it. If you want to use the internet's system, you use its rules.
"Your site is not a legitimate fan site because I did not authorize it."
I had been on the fence about Paul. On one hand he seems to make sense, but when push comes to shove I guess his posturing was just that. Raises GOP hypocrisy like Scott Brown's "I was opposed to Obamacare before I put my adult daughter on it" to a new UN loving level.
From the findings:
Complainant asserts that Respondent has no legitimate interest in the Domain Name because Complainant
has not authorized Respondent to use the RON PAUL name. However, expressing support and devotion to
Ron Paul’s political ideals, which Respondent shares, is a legitimate interest that does not require
Complainant’s personal approval. In response to Complainant’s contention that registration of a mark by an
entity with no relationship to the mark creates a strong presumption of lack of legitimate interest, Respondent
urges it is well established that fan sites satisfy the “legitimate interest” prong under the Policy.
Respondent’s and JNR’s fan site fosters a strong relationship to Complainant. Respondent’s legitimate
interest in the Domain Name is even stronger than the interest supporting fan pages for cultural icons,
because Ron Paul’s importance is not just cultural but political and ideological. In expounding on that
importance, the site to which the Domain Name links contributes to America’s political discourse. Political
speech is at the core of what the First Amendment is designed to protect. Respondent’s website is a public
service that receives the highest deference under U.S. constitutional standards. Because of that status, and
the significant investment that Respondent, JNR and the public have made in developing the political
discourse at Respondent’s site, Respondent’s rights override the minimal commercial value of the Domain
Name in a case like this. Complainant mischaracterizes the site to which the Domain Name links as
“primarily a pretext for commercial advantage.” Nothing but Complainant’s rhetoric supports that false claim.
Hey Ron Paul, you can have the domain for free.
Oh hell no, I hate open and free stuff! I looove the legal system! Let's do this!
Does that seem odd to anyone?
a) The internet is an organizational hierarchy, Mr. Paul may be of the understanding that he is merely attempting to attain control over his own "public profile" much like one would go after someone pretending to be them on Facebook.
b) When it comes to economics THIS IS FREE MARKET CAPITALISM. Free market basically translates to DO WHATEVER YOU WANT WITH ANY AVAILABLE POWER. If a power such as an organization with oversight is accessible, whether you dislike the fact that that power exists, you're still going to use it to make it work for you.
Just makes you a giant cock sucker.
This comment is off topic, and you may freely moderate it so.
Once upon a time long ago I was intrigued by the rapid absorption of domain names and their escalating value. Particularly short names. And so I wrote a perl script to permute all possible 4-letter domains and look them up in the hope of identifying some interesting names to squat. I'm not really proud of that, but it was long ago when such stuff wasn't as abhorrent as the current day. I was sipping Maker's Mark on the rocks all night. I identified and registered a few, and one came up - iran.com, which could have been lucrative with the runner community. I was placing the order for the iran.com domain on Christmas eve when just then my wife came up, stroked my neck and said "come to bed." I got some. That was the most expensive nookie I ever got.
Help stamp out iliturcy.
Generally speaking, a libertarian would want to see stuff like this handled as if it were private property, i.e. bought and sold as same. They recommend same with airwaves, and let the market sort it out.
So this is indeed strange behavior. Now if there should be some kind of registered trademark first dibs rights on domain names, protection of IP being a legitimate government function, fair enough, but that's not the way the law is currently.
As a "small-L libertarian type", I don't defend him on this.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
Doesn't this fly in the face of virtually every other "cybersquating" ruling? Its his name, he has good reason for wanting it (campaigning) and the current owners don't seem to have any valid reason for possessing it. I can recall cases where legitimate domains where confiscated from their owners because a larger commercial interest wanted it (I think it was a small business named for their owner and an actor wanted the domain). Either the rules have changed significantly in the past few years or they are being applied very selectively.
Our domain name system is totally fucked.
Ok. Don't use it. It isn't a requirement of connecting to other computer systems. If you don't like convenience, you don't have to make use of it.
must suck to have such an over inflates sense of adequacy and not be able to get anyone to agree with you.
Ron Paul and his son Rand are two of the biggest A-holes in the nation! I'm glad Ron didn't get his site. Hope they fine him for being an A-hole.
My karma is bad. Don't get too close!!!
gosgog:
In my past 30+ years of working in our United States....my IRS taxes took 30 some percent of my Gross income. After some 13 or 14 years of working for other folks, I had businesses of my own...and so I guess I was a republican at heart. Now, I'm retired & didn't Vote for Dubya Bush & I would have voted for a McAnn/Palin, or even a just Palin ticket, if there had been one. But looking at the Republicans today I'm appalled.!! And this Jackass, RON PAUL just goes to confirm that....He thinks the Gov't should give "APPLE" (2012's top Corporation...Billions!!) an AWARD....what percentage did they pay in TAXES...17%.... YEP Seventeen Percent. GOVERNMENT LOOPHOLES....The RICHER you are the less TAX you contribute for the BENEFIT of Your COUNTRY!!