Update: The dispute was peacefully resolved on May 22, 2013. WIPO ruled that RonPaul.com shall remain with its current owners. The fight for liberty continues.
Everyone seems to be missing the point that there are links all over the worldwide web to this site, which the present owners have been running for years. Every one of those thousands (or millions) of links automatically become DEAD if Ron Paul takes this domain name and this site is moved to another domain (e.g. RonPaul.org).
If Ron Paul had wanted the domain earlier, he could have had it. But to come along now after tens of thousands of hours of work have gone into it: that's nuts. Contrary to assertions in other comments, the site cannot be moved to another domain name without losing much (maybe most) of the value of those thousands of hours of effort. Ron is wanting to start from scratch; there is no reason he can't start from scratch with RonPaul.org as his domain.
Hotly debated. What do you think? 19 11
Let's not exaggerate here. According to Alexa, there's 2,381. According to google, there's only 381. Hardly in the millions, barely in the thousands.
That is their fault for building a site on sand. Had they wanted to preserve the name for Ron Paul so a neocon couldn't get their mitts on it (pun intended) then they should have done just that. Well, Ron Paul said thanks for preserving it, now hand it over. They had 5 years of profit from this site come in, when they should never had had that opportunity.
You question why he didn't get it earlier. Had he done that, these guys wouldn't have made as much as they have from this site. 39% of the traffic this site gets is because of people searching "Ron Paul" in google search. If they didn't have RonPaul.com, they wouldn't be #1 in google, no matter how much SEO they claimed to have put into it. RonPaul.com, as long as it's an active website that has decent content, will always show as #1 in google.
.org won't register as well in search engines at .com.
In fact, both domains should be handed over to Ron Paul. This site should not have the option to transfer to the .org, as it's the same trademark infringement category as the .com.
Like or Dislike: 9 10
Quit acting like Ron Paul has done something wrong when you are clearly in the wrong according to the law. If you would have acted reasonably instead of trying to initially gouge him for his own name and then make it appear as if you are the "good guys" by an enormous price reduction like you are giving him a break.
Wake up and smell the coffee guys and do the right thing immediately which is:
1. Transfer the 2 domains in question immediately to the honorable Dr Ron Paul and point this website to some other domain as it is a good archive/resource and i send people here all the time.
2. Write him a sincere letter of apology for being such boneheads and trying to extort money from him when you have been profiting off his name for years. You are damned lucky he is a gracious man because if it was me I'd sue your asses so hard the soup kitchens the world over would 86 you for life.
Right on this page you twist his words about the UN to suit your greedy agenda. You are destroying your reputation and you should be ashamed of yourselves because you clearly know that the rules you are governed by when you purchased this and the other domain under World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) and ICANN are 100% in Ron Pauls favor so you are pissing in the wind with this.Quit while you are ahead and not too deep into this little battle because you will lose this one.
Highly rated. What do you think? 27 17
Then take it to Court!
Not UN NWO Globo-Land!
Like or Dislike: 8 7
So you're rather sue them, drag them through court costing both parties thousands of dollars, Ron Paul winning, and possible sue for the cost of litigation?
Rather than settle it through arbitration, which just means they're going to go over the policies and laws, tell both parties of their options. If they still can't settle, then we'll go to court. But do the owners of RonPaul.com really want to be subpoenaed to court... and have to buy a flight from AUSTRALIA to appear in court?
I make the assumption the owners are in Aussie because the site is registered in AU and admin contact are in AU.
Yea, that'll make things much easier!
Like or Dislike: 2 4
You'd rather the UN decide, than a U.S. court? Why would he go to Australia, not vice versa. Look up the laws on this. It goes to U.S. Courts, not Australia!
The UN thing. That's my beef.
If Ron can prove he's right in Court, good for him, he must have been right all along.
If not, then NO, I'm not gonna advocate for World Government.
Like or Dislike: 3 2
The UN isn't deciding ANYTHING!
ICANN, WIPO are not the UN but being international agencies, I can see why they would be associated.
The internet IS international. Not just Americans can buy and use .COMs, thus there was a need for an international oversight. They are not making court orders here. They are there to discuss with both parties, review evidence and try to get both sides to come to an agreement. If that is not possible, then that's when it leaves the hands of ICANN and WIPO and litigation begins within the traditional court system.
OH BUT WAIT! What about all the LIBERAL judges we all love to hate? What about the fact we hate our federal administration, and some of us hate our state and local governments. Oh no, you have to go to THEIR house (court house) you must be conspiring with TPTB since you've been visiting that government court house every week for the past 6 months, and where'd all your money go? Oh yea, had to hire a lawyer that charges $300 an hour...
IT'S THE ONLY MEANS TO COME TO A RESOLUTION!
Just like having to go through ICANN, WIPO, that's the system and you've gotta do it or stay home and quit.
This is meant to save both party's time and money having to go through the court system.
Like or Dislike: 4 6
I thought people in this camp made arguments from principals and not arguments from authority (or law)?
Highly rated. What do you think? 15 2
In this instance, principle is followed by law.
Law isn't inherently evil. I quiet like the law that says you can't just kill me, or beat me up in the middle of the street, or throw me into a river with cement shoes on. I kind of like the Constitution, which is the LAW of the land.
Trademark laws protect intellectual PROPERTY. Shouldn't your mind and your hard work be protected? Well, it can be protected using trademark laws and that's exactly what Ron Paul had done.
Thus, Ron Paul has legal standing of ownership of that domain as it pertains to his trademark.
Like or Dislike: 4 7
So make your argument from principal rather than law. I agree, the law is not always in opposition to morality but rational arguments must be made from principals rather than human dictates.
Like or Dislike: 2 0
If fools with your sentiments prevail in this then the Liberty movement is truly dead and libertarian doctrine and the philosophy of free market capitalism as expoused by the likes of Lew Rockwell and Ron Paul are a falsehood.
Like or Dislike: 3 1
What about the DailyPaul? Is that the same story?
Like or Dislike: 3 4
No, because I doubt Ron Paul filed a trademark request for the phrase "DAILY PAUL". I work with trademark attorneys all the time in my business. It's not an easy process and it's definitely not cheap, and must be maintained.
Although, any merchandise being sold on their website is subject to royalty. But Ron Paul isn't after the money, he just wants his domain name. Otherwise, he would also be suing them for profiting off of his trademark, which they clearly are.
I mean, they're selling keychains with his face on it for crying out loud.
Like or Dislike: 5 3
Sorry but it is his name, it represents his reputation.. It really has to be turned over to him in my opinion.
Hotly debated. What do you think? 24 15
You guys are being dicks. Seriously. It would take an hour or two to transfer the site to new domain. He doesnt want your files, just his name. I find it reprehensible that you are trying to sell it to him. Do the right thing and give the man his name. You could easily change the name. All your accomplishing with this childish bullshit is turning people off to your site, and therefore decreasing your revenue anyways.
Highly rated. What do you think? 32 16
Ron Paul is acting horribly. He needs to pay up or let you keep this site.
Hotly debated. What do you think? 13 21
He doesnt want the site. Just the domain name. Its his. It would literally take a couple of hours for the owners of this site to change to a slightly different domain name. The site will still exist and look/function exactly as it does now, there would just be a different name in the address bar.
Hotly debated. What do you think? 19 13
A domain name belongs to the person who registered it and pays for it to maintain the registry. It doesn't just belong to someone because it is their name, even if they trademark their name, and even if they are super popular.
I have been a Paul supporter, and contributed to the campaign a number of times. I'm willing to bet that this site helped contribute to many that did contribute as well. So to ask for some compensation for the domain name seems reasonable.
Like or Dislike: 6 4
Hours? I've seen domains propagate in under 30 minutes these days. This isn't the 90's, DNS propagation is lightening fast compared to back in the day. Buy a domain name, update the name server and they'd can be up and running on a new domain in under an hour.
Of course it's ultimately in the courts hand. While I've never been in an UDRP arbitration before, but the concept of arbitration is to prevent having to spend THOUSANDS of dollars going to court, dragging on for months and month.
The setup is simple. As they registered the domain, they agreed to fall under ICAAN and UDRP policy of arbitration if a dispute arises. The third party arbitrator (WIPO) will sit down with both parties and review both parties evidence as to why they should either gain or maintain control of the RonPaul.com domain name.
One party (Ron Paul) will have his lifetime being Ron Paul. His 30 year career in public office, his books, his official merchandise and last but certainly not least, a legal document showing that he had registered his name Ron Paul, as a trademark and brand of his.
The other party, will say they admired Ron Paul's run in 2007, bought the domain and have been selling unauthorized merchandise on the website, using images of Ron Paul without authorization. But they did spend 5 years and 10,000 man hours on the website, a website that they will still own... just not on RonPaul.com
IF they can't settle like men, then they have to go to court.
But look at their static for abritration:
It's clear that many, if not most, of the cases they hear are rejected as many tom dick and harry's try to gain domain names back but can't. However; Ron Paul has a very good chance of success as many who submit request probably never even heard of a trademark before.
The UN increasingly wants to influence our domestic environmental, trade, labor, tax, and gun laws. Its global planners fully intend to expand the UN into a true world government, complete with taxes, courts, and a standing army. This is not an alarmist statement; these facts are readily promoted on the UN’s own website. UN planners do not care about national sovereignty; in fact they are actively hostile to it. They correctly view it as an obstacle to their plans. They simply aren’t interested in our Constitution and republican form of government.
The choice is very clear: we either follow the Constitution or submit to UN global governance. American national sovereignty cannot survive if we allow our domestic laws to be crafted by an international body. This needs to be stated publicly more often. If we continue down the UN path, America as we know it will cease to exist.
The UDRP is followed by all registrars of the following generic top-level domain (gTLD) names: .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 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.
Merely by owning and registering a domain name, you've already associated yourself with ICANN, UDRP and the UN. So whatever you think Ron Paul is guilty of, so are you.
UDRP is the only arbitrary service for domain disputes. Would you rather he took it straight to court rather than doing it the way it's suppose to be done, through UDRP arbitration?
Trademark. Ron Paul owns it. RonPaul.com does not. Ron Paul is the legal owner of RonPaul.com
Doesn't matter if there's any association with the UN or not.
Like or Dislike: 11 5
So, the ultimate authority that will decide this is a U.S. court, no?
Why do you say, "...so are you."? I don't own a domain name.
If I had an issue with Property, I would take to Court in my country, America.
I still can't understand what the UN is doing involved at all in Property Rights arbitration.
I understand it is over domain names. Also, what authority do they have to force one party to turn over property to another?
Sorry, I'm not very computer savvy, please enlighten me, without subjecting me to Globalist propaganda.
Like or Dislike: 2 1
You don't have a choice!
Everyone, whether you buy your domain on a computer in the good o'l country state of Tennessee or in Usbekistan, if you purchase a .COM, you agree to the terms and conditions of ICANN and subsequently, UDRP. You don't have a choice, they are the arbitration body for this type of ownership disputes.
So if the fact that these are international groups (because .COM and the internet has no ONE country affiliation) and may have loose association with the UN, we're all evil anti-capitalist?
The owners of RonPaul.com agreed to the terms of ICANN and UDRP, which partially state that you are not knowingly infringing on copyrights. They were infringing on Ron Paul's copyrights, as he holds the trademark of his name. They were lucky to have a solid 5 years to profit from his name and that Ron Paul isn't suing them for at least ROYALTY for profiting from his name.
Like or Dislike: 7 4
Who died & put ICANN in charge of the internet?
Like or Dislike: 1 4
And the authority is domestic and international trademark laws. He had his name trademarked, they bought a domain that carries his trademark and profited from it. By law, Ron Paul is in the right to not only take back the domain but sue for damages, since they didn't pay a royalty for profiting of his name and trademark.
They're better to just give back the domain, or instead of requesting $250k from the good doctor, they may owe him in damages for that amount.
They were able to get 5 years worth of profit from this site. I see AdChoice adverts, t shirt sales, even making a commission off of his book, etc
Like or Dislike: 6 3
So, the Authority, as I was asking, IS Domestic Courts.
We CONSTITUTIONAL Conservatives, in America, don't abide "international law". In case you are new to the Ron Paul thing.
I think your argument, is one that will have to be saved for a Judge, in a US Courtroom
Like or Dislike: 4 4
Funny whoever thumbs downed this comment, thumbs downed a direct quote from the good Doctor himself.
Like or Dislike: 1 0
I think there's more to this than the authors here on RonPaul.com want to let on.
On the one hand, I don't think it follows very well with free market perspective to try to "forcefully" take the domain from the current owners. It was peacefully acquired by them and they seem to be the rightful owners of that property. After all, they didn't steal it from RP and he, presumably, had an equal chance of securing it and didn't.
However, from what I'm reading 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. The UN itself doesn't have any authority over the matter - RP knows this and that's not part of the issue.
I'm also told by a friend who I trust that the actual owners of the domain are outside the US - I'm not 100% positive if this is true or not, but if it is it makes more sense why RP's lawyers opted to use the UN-connected arbitration service and not one of their other options.
So, on one hand I can see the argument that he's trying to circumvent private property rights. On the other, though, it doesn't seem like any of this is government-connected (yet, at least), but is founded on the voluntary agreement to arbitration the domain owners signed.
I'm sure more details will come to light and make this much easier to interpret.
Like or Dislike: 4 2
Thank you for helping to begin to clear this issue up.
I hope that no Ron Paul supporter likes the UN.
If the WIPO is truly operating under it's own authority & not under UN coordination, and Dr.Paul has no other venue of recourse because the domain owners are not America &/or there are no U.S. propery rights laws that cover the internet in this regard, then I guess his decision to go through a World Body is somewhat more acceptable.
Still, if Dr.Paul has a case, it SHOULD be resolved in a U.S. court, if possible.
Helping to create the legitimacy of a World Government is not worth it, even if it seems harmless.
Like or Dislike: 1 1
It appears you are correct
Whois Privacy Services Pty Ltd
Domain Hostmaster, Customer ID : 95459852061642
PO Box 923
Fortitude Valley QLD 4006 AU
Whois Privacy Services Pty Ltd
Domain Hostmaster, Customer ID : 95459852061642
PO Box 923
Fortitude Valley QLD 4006 AU
Phone: Phone: +61.730070090
Fax: Phone: +61.730070091
Record created on: 2000-11-22 18:05:56 UTC
Record modified on: 2013-02-08 18:21:09 UTC
Record expires on: 2020-11-22 UTC
And their domain registrar is Fabulous located in Australia.
Fabulous.com Pty Ltd
Level 1, 91 Bridge Street
Fortitude Valley QLD 4006
PO Box 757
Fortitude Valley QLD 4006
Like or Dislike: 4 1
your comment on this is by far one of the most measured that has been presented so far. however, i would dispute that the owners of this domain voluntarily signed up for an arbitration process anymore than any citizen in any nation state ever has voluntarily consented to taxation by simply being resident.
Like or Dislike: 0 0
I recently saw on a video that Ron had stated that he will have to use something else other than Ron Paul.com, because that site was already in use. This doesn't sound like Ron Paul!!! To use the UN the people at Ron Paul.com have been government hijacked don't fall for this BS!!!
"Earlier today, Ron Paul filed an international UDRP complaint against RonPaul.com and RonPaul.org with WIPO, a global governing body that is an agency of the United Nations. The complaint calls on the agency to expropriate the two domain names from his supporters without compensation and hand them over to Ron Paul."
He didn't seem to care when there was no value associated with RonPaul.com. We could use this to teach people about Ron Paul's covetous nature and where value comes from; productive human labor.
If it wasn't for your hard work, there would be nothing for Ron Paul to try and steal, and I find it very interesting that Ron Paul petitions the UN for what he thinks is justice.
Some of you may have heard Ron Paul mention what the purpose of government is, which is to defend liberty, and that's what justice is, defending liberty with force. Ultimately justice needs to be backed up by collective force, because people gang up on each other, and collective force will be used to take peoples liberty. That's where "government" comes from and why we create it to begin with, to meet injustice with collective force, and Ron Paul seems to want the UN to do his plundering for him.
Like or Dislike: 6 7
Ron Paul doesn't want the site (and his hard work), as you allege, he wants the domain, which is legally and logically his intellectual property. The owner could simply purchase ronpaulfansite.com or something similar, and set the nameservers to point to this same site host, and it'd essentially be the exact same site.
Ron Paul isn't stealing anything from anyone. He's simply contending that after several attempts to purchase the domain, he has a legal case that the owner was attempting to sell the domain for much more than its market value, and that they don't have a case for ownership since Dr. Paul has a legal basis for the intellectual property ownership.
This is far from wanting to steal this website, which isn't much more than a glorified blog and shop.
Like or Dislike: 10 5
That seems like a reasonable solution. If Ron Paul were to pay the cost of the domain name 'ronpaulfansite.com', plus maybe a little something for helping the campaign all those years, that sounds fair to me.
These guys, Ron Paul, the website guys, are all helping each other, as well as us. It'd be a shame to see them destroy it over everyone's greed.
Like or Dislike: 1 2
So do you want him to write them a check or just give them cash for that $7.25 for the new domain name?
Or how about they use the profit from their unauthorized merchandise and advertisement revenue that they've sold over the past 5 years.
I once had a personal site that I started to get a lot of unique hits from google. Made an easy $600 a month using Google Adsense. If they truly have 170,000 email subscribers, and as much traffic as they bring in, I bet they're making a hell of a lot more than $600 a month, especially with how much us "PaulBots" spend on anything that has the good Doctors name on it. OEM or not.
You're not really a free market person are you?
The property being lost by the current owners is the brand. That is why financial compensation is due. All the work they have put into this site will be lost or greatly diminished upon relinquishing the name and they will be forced to start over just because the RP organization thinks they should not have to compenstate the owners for it. Not very free market of them imho.
Like or Dislike: 3 0
From what I can tell from the official documents provided on the website, the owners of the domain wanted to sell him the website for $848,000 and then later offered to sell it to him for $250,000.
Your sensationalist title and attempt to defame the honorable Ron Paul are reprehensible.
You are misleading Dr. Paul's followers. The WIPO has worked with ICANN since its creation in resolving intellectual property disputes. Obviously, none of us like the U.N. but the process is what it is. If he can prove that he does have ownership of his own name as intellectual property, and that you are currently holding the name in an attempt to profit off of the sale (domain squatting), which I think the documentation proves is clearly in his favor (he owns the trademark to his own name) then chances are you'll lose the site and your reputation.
If you really are on the moral high ground, which your article attempts to portray (Dr. Paul is evil and will use the UN to tear down grassroots websites! We offered to give the site to him for free, we poured our heart and soul into it, our labor of love will be crushed by post-congressman Dr. Paul!) then why did you demand so much money for the domain, when he first contacted you regarding a purchase of the domain? Really? $848,000? Followed up by a GENEROUS $250,000 offer??
Give me a break.
I'm excited that Dr. Paul is now out of office, and is interested in expanding the message of liberty via the internet. We still don't know what his venture will be, but he has voiced an interest in an online show, either radio or video, and if he wants to broadcast it from ronpaul.com, which he can legally contend is his intellectual property, why would you attempt to fight that? Are you really the grassroots loving supporters you claim to be, or are you just here to make a buck?
Hotly debated. What do you think? 16 8
Glad someone trying to explain the UN thing. I have no clue what the ICANN is, what it's significance to the Sovereign Authority of U.S. Civil Courts is, i.e., what authority / jurisdiction does the ICANN or WIPO, officially have in the United States?
I agree it is a sensationalist title, but then again this site has certainly proven to be loyal to the core to Dr.Paul & more importantly the ideals he stands for.
Btw, I am in no way associated with this site I'm just a fan. I don't feel Dr.Paul is being wronged, nor is he evil in any way for pursuing this, though.
For those saying the individuals who worked on & created ths site shouldn't profit from it... Why do you think Dr.Paul's camp wants the site? To make money. And there's nothing wrong with that.
Just the UN thing.
Plus, the RP 2012 Campaign was apparently asked if they wanted to own RonPaul.com/.org back during the campaign & they said no, or didn't respond.
I think what you're misunderstand is, that the process of contesting domain ownership (because the internet is global, and not limited to one country) has from its onset been handled by this organization. It just happens to be a branch of the UN, but there isn't any other way. The next option is to file a lawsuit within the US to overrule any ruling made by a UDRP proceeding.
To educate yourself, look read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniform_Domain-Name_Dispute-Resolution_Policy
Basically, ICANN handles domain name registration (.com's, like ronpaul.com) while the WIPO (a UN branch) handles resolving intellectual property disputes. Not sure why this is, it's just how it is, and probably it's this way because it's considered a "global" organization, and therefore is a decent moderator in resolving these disputes.
Hope that helps clear things up.
Yes it kind of does... I think.
Maybe I just don't like Global authority but...
Still not a good situation.
Personally, if I were Ron Paul, as anti-UN as he is (I am), I would just file the suit in US court if I really wanted to protest this.
I would not contribute to UN legitimacy, no matter how seemingly inconsequential.
If there is anyway of legal recourse through U.S. courts, that's the route I would've gone. Even if no recourse thru US, I wouldn't touch the anything resembling Global government.
That is still one of the Beauties of the Internet, it is relatively unregulated.
If I were Ron Paul I would take the loss for Liberty.
I choose to Err on the side of Freedom.
Like or Dislike: 5 1
Another braindead moron. Truly deserving of the label Paulbot. God what has the liberty movement come to. From sellout Rand to Paul supporters aborgating basic tennents of the free market and capitalism.
When you find a lawyer, please tell them that I will testify, under oath, that I personally informed the campaign, multiple times, via telephone and email, that the domain was available at auction. They had absolutely no interest in the domain at the time. The C4L isn't competent - the RonPaul.org was turned over to the open market with no explanation what so ever.
The more I get to know Ron Paul, the less I like him. I hope you win. I wish I had money to help you fight.
You idiots should be ashamed of yourselves treating the good Dr Paul this way. It is HIS NAME and you are doing nothing but hijacking it for monetary gain and using his name for the same reason. You should be ashamed of yourselves and i hope you LOSE your case and are counter sued for millions for the misuse of the mans name. You are despicable traitors!!
Hotly debated. What do you think? 21 17
I understand the Property Rights argument, & if Dr.Paul can prove his case in court, excellent for him.
The thing that bothers m mostlye is the using the U.N.
Isn't that promoting the authority of the U.N. & World Government?
Just please don't charge $ to post & comment on this site if you do win, Dr.Paul.
Some here knocking the current owners of this Domain name for profitting from it, may be the first to defend profitting from charging for it's use, under new management, i fear.
Afterall free speech is also one of the most important ideals to the freedom movement, & we have Free free speech at this venue currently.
Based upon letter from Doug Wead asking some to join his Pyramid money schemes & C4L & others pandering for cash with little visible return, along with actions from Paul insiders like Jesse Benton & John Tate sabotaging the campaign, I truly wonder whether someone advising Dr.Paul is just out for money or what.
Either outcome or whatever, the FREEDOM MOVEMENT cannot be divided!
We MUST NOT be divided!
It is behind the IDEALS & PRINCIPLES of freedom that we must be UNITED!!!
NOT under just One Man!
- THAT is Dr.Paul's message!!!!
The principles Dr.Paul ran on, the things he stood for, are what his SUPPORTERS stand for, & THAT is the reason for Dr.Paul’s success.
This site is FOR his supporters, by his supporters, not for him by him.
Based upon his PRINCIPLES, which are OUR principles!
Why should the people who: BUILT this site, put the work in, RUN it, & share it’s content w/ Ron Paul (free advertising) & his principles’ supporters for FREE… give their hard earned business away for pennies on the dollar it's worth?
Work hard : Make money – & that’s a problem for Libertarians??!
What happened to free markets?
Is Obama right, did the guys who built this site, NOT build it?
PS - I'm just a Libertarian Constitutional Conservtive Ron Paul supporter who gave hundreds of hard earned lawn mowing dollars to Dr. Paul's campaign. I put up signs & ordered bumperstickers & put em up on the town greens & road signs in the area. I treavelled across state to RI from CT to his Rally at URI, & from CT to FL for PaulFest. - I am in no way affiliated with this website, other than I like it
Hotly debated. What do you think? 10 16
I know I would be pissed if someone was using my name as their web address.
Highly rated. What do you think? 26 9
Amen! It's called the golden rule. Would you be pissed if someone used YOUR name for their web address! I understand Dr. Paul has allowed whoever the owners are to use his name without issue until recently, now that he is OUT OF CONGRESS and needs to have HIS OWN VEHICLE to continue his work and spread his message.
Seriously, you people need to take ronpaul.org and let THE REAL RON PAUL take back HIS NAME'S .com -- he'll pay for a REASONABLE price.
Hey here's a question, how much did you ('owners') pay to purchase this domain in the first place? I'd love to know the answer.
Like or Dislike: 8 6
I thought you guys were "saving the domains for Ron Paul" so people wouldn't abuse them? Looks like you are those people.. I bet we have some dirty RNC people behind this.
Highly rated. What do you think? 22 10
If you guys continue to do this to Ron Paul your greed will force me to leave this website forever.
take me off your email list.
Highly rated. What do you think? 26 16
What are you talking about greed? These people have worked their arse off for Paul and have built up a very successful site. If anything Paul is being greedy by trying to take this site for nothing from those who originally purchased it and it just adds insult to injury that these people have done him a great service over the years. It's an absolute disgrace.
I don't think he wants the website or emails, just the domain name. The present owners of this site can keep their email list and content and just come up with a different domain name (I would suggest RonPaulMerchandise.com or RonPaulNews.com as more honest and appropriate) and notify their members. Ron Paul apparently offered $50,000 just for a domain name (that happens to be HIS name), which I think is a very generous offer. The "captains of industry" who created this website have and can continue to profit off Ron Paul's name by peddling paraphernalia with his name and image on them. They can cash in for an addional $50,000 off Ron Paul himself just for selling him a domain that obviously should be his since the present owners have his image all over this website. Ron Paul himself made the name Ron Paul well known and valuable, not this stupid website.
I think the main issue here is the hypocracy of trying to use the U.N., & thereby promoting U.N. authority, as well as undermining private enterprise.
Does Ron believe he is in the moral right, & is going about this the American, Constitutional, Free Market way? Honestly, I don't know? I think this warrants some free market, constitutional explaination.
Dr. Paul, sir, honesly, with all due respect... WTF is goin on lately?
Are you being threatened?
Was this whole campaign/movement supposed to be part of the 'control' & the 'hope'?
It sure seems like the Freedom Movement, The 'Paul' sites, & other venues are being infiltrated (or have been infiltrated) & forces are now weaseling from within working to destroy the movement, from the inside.
Inconsistancy in the Idealogy!!!!! We DO Understand!!!
Hotly debated. What do you think? 18 19
Thumbs down but no response?
Where is the intellectual debate?
Is this Huffington Post comment board?
What's with the Cult of Personality?
This is about America, & Principles & Ideals consistant with freedom & individualism, not one human being.
I just really want an explaination on the UN thing.......
Hotly debated. What do you think? 14 17
4 cowards can press a button but don't have the intellectual or testicular fortitude to provide a written response...
Could it be you have no explanation why Dr. Paul would suddenly embrace the 'authority' of the United Nations?
Hotly debated. What do you think? 9 15
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:
Obvious future result is obvious...
If you are claiming to have bought the domain only to keep the "enemy" from buying it, and then turn around and try to squeeze $250,000.00 (down from $840,000) from Ron Paul for it you get what you deserve...
Highly rated. What do you think? 16 4
Let me educate you, who is clearly missing the point about condoning the expantion of UN authority. I don't care who supposedly governs it. That (Globalism), is what we're protesting here as Ron Paul supporters, libertarians, & CONSTITUTIONAL conservatives.
If you oppose the UN slowly creeping into authority & undermining national sovereignty, as Ron Paul & myself do, why would you ever use the UN as a tool for your profit? Does he not realize he is indirectly (or directly) promoting the authority of an
International Governing Body?
Since he is so anti-UN/Globalism, & pro-property rights, for settling these types of issues, as he campaigned on, why would he not just take it to court in the US?
It is hypocritical at best.
In case you did not know, despite what may seem like legal authority behind pages & pages of legal mumbo-jumbo, ICANN does not have the final say in this issue. A US Civil court will, that is a fact.
Why would Ron & his people pay $250,000 if they have a shot at getting it through WIPO arbitration for a WIPO fee of $3000?
Like or Dislike: 8 9
I thought Ronnie was all about individual freedom? I guess he meant HIS individual freedom not anyone else's?
Like or Dislike: 2 2
Adam - I really think the RP "Cult of Personality" is asserting its self. You are exactly correct as what the issue here is (Demanding property you don't rightfully own and invoking UN "sanctions when you don't get it). If Ron Paul is behind this then he is truely showing what a hypocrite he is. If it is being inititated by some one on his behalf then he needs to be more closely involved with his organization, something which he has been lax in in the past.
I am a huge admirer and supporter of Ron Paul. But I don't think he's in the right here. For example, what if other people named "Ron Paul" also approached you, the owners of this domain name, and also fought for ownership?
My own name may be mine, it may be limited, but other people have the same name.
Anyone here who has read Defending the Undefendable also might just conclude that charging Ron Paul for these domains is not unethical. I don't know.
I know it's not the end of the world if he doesn't gain ownership, and it would be sad to see the current property destroyed. I do see both sides here, but in the end, I would not side with Ron Paul in this case.
I'll say this: I'm very happy it's not me who decides the outcome.
Like or Dislike: 10 9
The content of this website is very much distinguishable to one person. Not just anyone can claim this site because they are "Ron Paul". But, Ron Paul does have a right to try and claim this site. Businesses battle this constantly. If Sprint.com expired and I registered it before they did. They would be able to get it back from me in court hands down. It is not a crime, but they would still get it back. This is a little different because its a name and was registered initially by someone else. I am not sure if he can claim it. The thing is Ron Paul may be able to get ronpaul.com for himself, but he has no right to the content of this site in my opinion. So at the least they lose the domain. They can move the content elsewhere and be done. The sucky part is all the broken links that will be a result!! And this domain has built up value.
This is a very strange dispute. I'm not really sure what to make of all this. What do the Libertarian theorists and scholars say about this dispute? What does the libertarian political philosophy say about this?
Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *
eight − 5 =
You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
Yes, send me email updates and action alerts from RonPaul.com
Notify me of follow-up comments by email.
Notify me of new posts by email.
RonPaul.com is maintained by independent grassroots supporters of Ron Paul. Neither this website nor the articles, posts, videos or photos appearing on it are paid for, approved, endorsed or reviewed by Ron Paul or his staff.