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.
Many people here are doing the same things that we get upset w/ Dems and Repubs for doing. Instead of thinking logically, you’re reacting. The problem here is that someone already OWNS this domain. If RP is going to try to take it from them instead of paying for it, he’s in the wrong. He was offerred something for free, and he was offerred a reasonable price for a mailing list. Yes, those things are worth a ton of money. Think about how much marketing and research has to be done to get a good mailing list.
The question here isn’t “Should RP be able to get a site with his name?” It is, “Should RP be able to take something that’s owned legally by someone else?”
Here’s what I want you all to do. Type your own name into the address bar. If someone owns that site, and they don’t have your name, is it right to try to take it from them? It really doesn’t matter if they’re making money off of it or not. It is perfectly legal to own any site name you want. And, yes, it does generate traffic. If this site were to change to ronpaul.org, they would lose a lot of traffic. However, they could easily put a link at the top of each page that goes directly to RP’s site if people get it wrong.
It’s a liberty thing, people. Most of you are saying the same thing that we’re fighting against. You’re saying, if someone has something that you want or think you deserve, take it from them. Don’t be stupid!!
WOW a libertarian who says he owns a trademark, the irony! Further that he feels he has a right to use an agency of the UN (that global world government that he shuns and despises) to acquire what he believes is his constitutional rights. The irony just gets deeper, when offered what was considered his property in the past and he declined it he forgo any right too ownership of this particular domain. These guys put blood sweat and tears into the site too support and develop it and pure libertarian principles are involved. Ron Paul must man up and face too face resolve his issues with the owners, if the 2 parties can not come to an accord then Ron Paul must stick to his principles and walk away. He then can take measures to ensure that those who come to the site are aware of where HIS site is by whichever free market remedies are available, say PAID advert on the site redirecting his supporters. Sorry but the right honorable Ron Paul just undid a lifetime of his work in a greedy tyrannical attempt to steal anothers hard work. WHAT A MOOCHER!!
I totally understand Dr Paul’s position, it’s his name for God sakes. People will believe he endorses and is responsible for your content. I had no idea he didn’t own his own domain name. I am a web designer myself and I don’t like it when people play dirty. Buy a popular name so they can hold it ransom and sell it for a ridiculous amount. I think its dirty. I had a customer who had someone doing her website and he never got it finished. She hired me to finish it and I called the guy and he said he would sell me her domain. I said no thanks and we chose another domain but it’s just not any honor to do it that way. You guys act like its a freedom and somehow because you bought it first you are owed something. You just beat him to the punch and if you were at all liberty minded you would sell the guy his domains for what you paid for them. That would be the right thing to do. That’s what I would do, especially for Ron Paul, I admire him more than any man on the planet. It would be my gift if I owned them.
And by, “you just beat him to the punch,” you mean they got there second after a staffer let the domain name expire?
Would you think it was wrong to buy http://www.pepsi.com and then turn around and try to sell it to Pespi for $2 million bucks? The owners had 100% knowledge of who Ron Paul was and knew eventually he may want his name rights. This is not an honorable thing to do. I’m sorry.
It’s not wrong. That happens _all_ the time, it’s totally legal and it’s called domain squatting. You think that should be illegal? That’s very un-Libertarian.
Now that the campaign is over, what legitimate reason could there be for you to hold on to RonPaul.com?
Unfortunately, if he doesn’t claim it now, that could be interpreted as him never having a interest in the domain in the future.
Your website could easily be moved to a new domain. There are ways to do it to prevent losing traffic, if you have enough time and planning.
But, if you really still support Ron Paul, wouldn’t that traffic going to him be a good thing?
There are property rights at play here. If you were doing business under your name, you would want to be able to claim that domain.
How many times did Ron Paul get slapped down for some moles articles that were written in the news letter that beared his name. That was over 20 years ago, yet the media tried to put on that he was anti-semetic because of someone elses dirty tricks… probably from the Federal Reserve Moles… He has a right to protect his name without paying $250K for it.
Someone trying to make a living off the back of someone else… Sounds like the typical American dream to me. Give the man his website back. That income was never yours to begin with so acting like you are inconvenienced or will be losing money is hilarious.
Like I said, typical American.
Wow. The whole purpose of Ron Paul’s campaign was to educate people on libertarian ideals. Unfortunately you didn’t learn as much as you should have. Ron is clearly in the wrong here.
And you sound like Obama too. (You didn’t build that.)
I came to this site to read this article, and I got here from a link by Travis Holte on Lew Rockwell’s site.
Ron Paul is the only political candidate who I’ve ever donated money. In 2008, I canvassed for him, and I am very introverted.
Over the years I have learned to think the problem over before jumping to conclusions. And after thinking this over, I’m sure that Ron Paul is wrong on this one. The owners of this site have invested time, money intellectual effort into this site. And as much as we’d like to think we own our own names – it just ain’t so. And after fighting SOPA and PIPA, I’m just not ready to hand over any authority over the internet to anybody, much less a U.N. body.
How anyone who believes in liberty can look at this any other way, is hard for me to fathom. I, too, am curious what Joe Salerno (Defending the Undefendable) will say about it.
FWIW – The offer you’ve made to Dr. Paul seems reasonable – most notably the domain name RonPaul.org – and stick to your guns. RP is not perfect – and he sure is wrong on this one.
After this domain issue and the Chris Kyle comment, Dr. Paul is beginning to lose life long supporters like myself. This does not jive with my American Libertarian values. Sad.
Are you extortionists? $250K to SELL RonPaul his own domain? That is ridiculous and you deserve to be sued. I am sure Ron Paul did not tell a legal team to “use the united nations organization”, but that very well could be all his legal team could find in order to secure his domain…
Why don’t YOU take RonPaul.org and do the right thing and give Ron his domain. I know that if I owned it, I would turn it over no questions asked even if it was a money machine for me…which it obviously is for you. You obviously did not secure this domain in order to “support” Ron, but to support yourselves.
I hope Ron ends up with the domain for nothing more than some lawyer fees. He has worked his ass off for us to spread this message and now YOU are going to silence him by being greedy little posers. Very disappointed!
“Are you extortionists? $250K to SELL RonPaul his own domain? That is ridiculous and you deserve to be sued. I am sure Ron Paul did not tell a legal team to “use the united nations organization”, but that very well could be all his legal team could find in order to secure his domain…”
So the fact the owner of this site purchased this domain legally means absolutely nothing to you, Ron Paul, or Lew Rockwell. Your inability at grasping logical consistency is astounding.
“Why don’t YOU take RonPaul.org and do the right thing and give Ron his domain. I know that if I owned it, I would turn it over no questions asked even if it was a money machine for me…which it obviously is for you. You obviously did not secure this domain in order to “support” Ron, but to support yourselves.”
Trying to make money legally is a such a terrible goal. That logic is also very much in line with Libertarian principles… You are correct, whoever owns this domain is an awful human being. How dare they attempt to teach liberty and put food on their table as well!
“I hope Ron ends up with the domain for nothing more than some lawyer fees. He has worked his ass off for us to spread this message and now YOU are going to silence him by being greedy little posers. Very disappointed!”
And I’m sure the owner of this domain has worked hard on it as well. The absence of logical consistency in your post is ridiculously embarrassing.
This seems entire fiasco and the ignorant comments simply illustrates the lack of intelligence within this movement. If it were any other politician, you would likely side with the domain owner.
Your thoughts on this speech given by Dr. Benjamin Carson’s at a prayer breakfast. Obama/Michele and Biden and wife in attendance. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PFb6NU1giRA
” Ron Paul, the grassroots candidate, who was at the right place at the right time to lead the rEVOLution, attacks his own grassroots supporters through an agency of the United Nations?”
If you supported him then yes, it seems to be the wrong thing he is doing. If you are living off his name then you are not a supporter, you are a thief.
There are legal channels in place to do what needs to be done, and condeming the man because he went through those legal channels is wrong, just as it is wrong to make a living off of others people work. That man dedicated his life to promoting liberty and you sit back and make money off that, i think you will find that a judge with any amount of common sense will make the same determination.
BTW, I am a long time Ron Paul supporter and this is my second visit to this site, my first visit, I found out that this site was not run by Ron Paul.
I must say this whole kerfuffle exemplifies why the concept of Intellectual Property sucks.
When Ron Paul passed over these domain names the folks at ronpaul.com had the foresight to buy them up, which they did so the names wouldn’t fall into malicious hands. The continued availability of these domain names on the market could have been catastrophic for the Ron Paul campaign — and these folks basically saved his butt. It seems to me that Ron Paul was fine with people sharing and even making money from his image and name when he was campaigning, for he was the ultimate beneficiary of their labor. And I don’t know why he doesn’t think the ronpaul.org domain that they offered to give him for free (even though they had to buy it) isn’t good enough. The .com TDN is steadily losing its prevalence.
If this is true–and i’ve been a Ron Paul supporter for a while–this is a scumbag move. I don’t care if the domains made money off of Ron Paul’s name. They did it with his full knowledge for twelve years. They also (1) deserved it, and (2) offered to give them to Ron Paul. He allegedly declined. Going to the U.N. just transforms this from bad to ridiculous.
You can easily tell the difference between supporters of free markets and supporters of Ron Paul in these comments i.e. people that know what they are doing and people that don’t.
Give him the domain. Why not? You’ve had a great run.
This is so sad to read about.. as a Canadian, to read this article that is so typically “American” Where people buy each others identity, in the name of “Liberty” to spread the good word, only to hold the identity hostage after it is no longer needed, is truly the ultimate disgrace to the original purpose. Where is the Liberty in this? Obviously in word only. The almighty dollar and its controllers, who is the target of the whole campaign, ironically comes home to roost. If this person truly is a libertarian he would gladly hand over domain to Mr. Paul, who’s name and identity is on the domain. This whole scenario stinks like rotting flesh and corruption from the inside out..
Hmmm. This saddens me. It seems to me that Ron Paul had a great deal of money left over from his campaign, which campaign was funded more through the efforts of others (including this site) than through his own efforts. If he is not going to issue refunds to his campaign donors then maybe he should consider buying this domain name at the market price. It is unfortunate that Ron Paul did not recognize earlier that passing over this domain name would not be his best business decision, but in the free market, sometimes if you snooze, you lose.
And seriously, Ron Paul and your official organizations – The WHOIS for ronpaul.com indicates that the record was created on 11/22/2000 – and I get it if at the time you guys made the mistake of thinking that the internet wasn’t going to pan out – after all, this was a full 5 years before youtube existed – but as they say, “them’s the breaks”.
This is the free market that you and I both want. Don’t get whiny when it doesn’t work out in your favor.
Yes, you are the most famous ‘Ron Paul’ in the world but that should not afford you special treatment.
As a die hard Libertarian and Ron Paul supporter, I do have to admit that in this instance, Ron Paul is in the wrong. Clearly the domain was purchased on the market. Ron Paul failed to have the foresight to purchase this domain while it was available on the market, and it now belongs to someone else. He is free to make an offer for the purchase of the domain, but if the owner does not wish to sell, that is that.
I realize that Ron Paul is a public figure, but surely there are other Ron Paul’s in the world, and their claim over the domain should be just as valid, that is, not at all.
This is the other side of the libertarian coin that we must accept. Libertarianism provides many opportunities for people to be dicks to each other. Ideally people will realize that doing so is beneficial to no one, but such realizations are not absolutely guaranteed. This site may not represent Ron Paul’s views in perfection, but then it does not claim to.
If I register obamasucksgoatdicks.com am I actually alleging that President Obama has actually placed goat penises in his mouth? No. Well maybe, but not necessarily.
*note to self – register obamasucksgoatdicks.com*
This is a rare instance in which I disagree with Ron Paul. This is the free market, dude, and if you didn’t have the forethought to secure domains that include your name, that’s on you.
Wow… So disappointed. So very, very disappointed.
Shame unto the man who would steal another man’s identity and then use the power and influence gained to shame the former. This is my first post on this site, but you have lost me as a subscriber.
By the way, if Ron Paul is your hero why don’t you trade the domain name for a photo op and some autographed books?
Because the site owner isn’t a self-sacrificing communist like you.
If I thought that’s what this would turn into I wouldn’ta signed up.
It’s not about following one inherently flawed person forever, as we all are flawed. This movement has, is & will continue to be about freedom for all individuals. That takes individual effort by each of us, working together towards that goal, in our own seperate ways.
Taking pictures? That sounds like an Obama supporter statement.
Sign up to receive free email updates from the RonPaul.com grassroots with the latest news, videos and liberty action alerts.