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.
Here are the facts: This site belongs to the people who own it. This is horrible, and has completely changed my opinion of Ron Paul. I havent always agreed with him, but I have always thought he was one of the honest ones, its a shame to have been proven wrong.
That said, what will this site do if it butts heads with Paul? Will you get a new domain for the libertarian philosophy and redirect your current domains towards it? It will obviously be difficult maintaining your market niche when the guy this site was founded to promote is now your enemy
Still, anyone who thinks that, after all of the work and money the site has put into it in recent years, it should just be handed over for free because Paul wants to seize it by force is a brainwashed part of his Cult of Personality, not someone genuinely dedicated to the causes he apparently pretended to fight for.
I am so disappointed in Ron Paul.
Like or Dislike: 8 9
What do you mean, “the people who own it”?
Not trying to be picky about words, but its important to understand that..
Domain names are not owned, they’re leased, under conditions, and Ron Paul is appealing to those who do the leasing saying that the current lessees are violating those conditions. He’s not sending in the CIA to seize computers.. he’s filing a complaint, in the pre-agreed, appropriate, manner on the basis of trademark infringement.
If you read his complaint, there is nothing false about what Dr Paul and his lawyers are saying, its very legitimate. Don’t go jumping ship so quickly.
Like or Dislike: 0 1
I hope you all feel incredibly stupid for supporting this dangerous crackpot now. Ron Paul has proven that he is no different from any other Republican that is around these days.
Like or Dislike: 6 13
Oh god yes… until this happened I thought we should spend only the money we have, leave other countries alone, reduce taxes, invest in domestic issues more and in foreign affairs less. But now, everything has changed.. I do feel a bit stupid.
Like or Dislike: 0 0
People have filed and printed things in Ron Paul’s name before, stirring up controversery; likle the “Letters” fromt he 80’s. I bet Ron Paul doesnt even know this is going on, this is some how a false flag attack to make paul look bad. This only means that Ron Paul is still threatening the establishment. Ron Paul was the most outspoken person of the UN, so I know in my heart he would never use them as leverage.
Like or Dislike: 6 4
What will your reaction be if this is proven?
Like or Dislike: 1 3
im content that a man of moral character that has been consistent for 70+ years wouldnt behave like this. I dont take 100% of a story for face value from only hearing one side of an argument we dont have all the facts on.
Like or Dislike: 4 0
also, if this were a ploy from the establishment to turn his supporters against him, it looks like it worked. It looks like everyone on here is looking to send him to the firing squad after one article of something that may not have all the facts in yet. The main stream media has been trying to make him look bad for a long time now, and it looks like they have everyone here hook line and sinker. break away from the heard mentality people
Like or Dislike: 2 0
You didnt answer the question. Lets say its all true. What will your reaction be?
Like or Dislike: 1 0
Ron Paul is a pathetic piece of shit. Countersue this miserable old man for everything he is worth. Take his house and force him to live in Rand Paul’s basement, at least until Rand starves him to death for being a moocher.
Hotly debated. What do you think? 5 15
Whoa, now THAT would be unprecedented! And, its so crazy, it just might work.
Yeah man, counter sue him even though he’s not suing you!
Brilliant.. “Ann Rand”, your dashing intellectual prowess is unparalleled. Now cook us up some chicken fried steaks and lets get this square dance started!
Maybe I just don’t like Global authority but…
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 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: 7 0
So everyone remembers Ronpaul2012.com right?
How much better was THIS site, more informative, more interactive… than the OFFICIAL Ron Paul campaign site? So much better!
Like or Dislike: 12 4
Ron Paul is being a huge scumbag with this. He has to know that he is in the wrong by now. Hopefully cooler heads prevail and he either lets these people keep the site or they come to a sales agreement.
And obviously the people siding with Ron Paul on this are just cult hero worshipping sheep.
Like or Dislike: 8 8
Those here siding against RonPaul.com sound exactly like the democrats & Obama who say “You did Not Build that”.
So these folks spents thousands of hours & dollars to build, maintain, & improve this site, promote Ron Paul & provide free advertising & fund raising for Ron Paul throughout his campaign through til today…
And Ron Paul is in the right for wanting to steal it from them? Via an International Governing Body?
Like or Dislike: 8 7
Yeah, they did it all for free. I see your point.
Never mind the loads of money they made by writing his name and slogans all over $3 tshirts and hoodies. Nevermind the ads all over the place and Amazon.com referal links.
Ron Paul isn’t stealing the source code, none of the improvements go away. He doesn’t want the servers, the mailing lists, the images. He’s not even saying they can’t sell the shirts! He just wants the name… my god… his name….
I think it is quite disgusting and hypocritical that Ron Paul is doing this, but the worst of it is how people seem to be bigger fans of Ron Paul then of the ideals behind his words. I get that some of you are saying that it is his name and that the owners of this domain would have signed Icann agreement but you all are missing something.
The owners of this site have owned it for 5 years, paid 25k to purchase it and spent god knows how many hours and money to keep create, maintain and promote the site (not to mention Ron Paul). Regardless of how much money they have made off it it Ron Paul should at the very least be NEGOTIATING!
So instead of even talking to the owners or giving a counter offer he decides to just try to take it? This goes against the free market, capitalism and everything Ron Paul has claimed to stand for… It is disturbing to see people who are more dedicated to Ron Paul then what you claim are his ideals.
You don’t believe in something only when it’s convenient to do so. Shame on all you who only care that this could potentially “hurt” Ron Paul.
Highly rated. What do you think? 18 6
Actually… this goes right along with the free market.
He’s appealing to a division of the U.N. — and not in the way you think. He’s actually petitioning for arbitration with an ICANN approved arbitrator, not with a court. ICANN is non-governmental, its a non-profit. The market is what created ICANN after practically destroying the old InterNIC (which was governmental).
So, domains are a product of the free market, and he’s appealing to the system created by the market. He always says that the “market will correct itself”.. and here it is, on display, market self regulation without governmental oversight. Kinda beautiful.
Arbitration is NOT a means of “stealing”. Here’s the definition:
“Arbitration, a form of alternative dispute resolution (ADR), is a technique for the resolution of disputes outside the courts, where the parties to a dispute refer it to one or more persons (the “arbitrators”, “arbiters” or “arbitral tribunal”), by whose decision (the “award”) they agree to be bound.”
Think of it as… formalized, binding, negotiations..
No one said the RP.com guys won’t get compensated for their hard work, Dr Paul has only filed a complaint at this point. Dr Paul is not the judge, he’s only the plaintiff. Hold tight, this could go in all sorts of directions.
Like or Dislike: 1 1
This is what you morons get for blindly following an openly corrupt, free market moron. Ron Paul was one of the most openly corrupt and selfish people in Congress and anyone could see it, but you people chose to follow him like some wacky religious cult and forgive the millions of times he’s acted contrary to his “libertarian principles.” This is exact what idiots like you deserve.
Like or Dislike: 1 6
I might be willing to represent you. Feel free to email me.
Like or Dislike: 4 9
Oh come on. It’s the free market. You can’t just decide when someone else’s property is yours because you want it to… and then turn the UN!!! for help. Ron Paul is being whiney.
Hotly debated. What do you think? 19 10
Honestly, why would you even consider asking him for money, when you’ve clearly made money and profited off another man’s name? Wouldn’t it have profited everyone in the liberty movement to have the man himself control the site. Just donate it to him FOR the liberty movement. Use your own name, instead of doing things in another man’s good name.
There, add my email to your $250k mailing list. Come on.
Hotly debated. What do you think? 27 18
Ron Paul doesn’t sell his stuff on “zazzle.com.” He has a site for that. Just how much money have you made off of Ron Paul? Clearly it’s valuable to you with a $250k price tag.
Highly rated. What do you think? 21 8
You sound just like the type of “Paulbot” that the left so often accused RP supporters of being, which is very sad. So often it was stated by the liberty movement that it was not about the man, it was about the message. Well what kind of message is the Ron Paul camp sending now. Even if RP is not directly involved in this, HE SHOULD BE. This kind of thing (if not directly initiated by RP) smacks of his newletters scandal. Invoking a UN organization to acquire property that he does not rightfully own is outragious. I am shocked that he would take such actions or let anyone representing him take such actions. Also, given that fact that he was offered RonPaul.org for FREE make this even more egregious.
Like or Dislike: 10 7
Take a look at the profit this site makes, then talk. I was reared classical liberal, long before my family knew Ron Paul, personally. Most of his inspiration came from my grandfather’s writings and my uncle, who helped him in 1980. I learned many years ago, that people who use the words “left” or “right”, “conservative” or “liberal” probably don’t know what they’re talking about. The same thing happened to my grandfather and he rightfully stopped people from profiteering from his name. If this site was for Ron Paul’s recent involvement in the century long liberty movement, then it would behoove them to send links to Ron Paul’s merchandise shops, not their own. Either way, Ron Paul will win his case. Any attorney who says otherwise will most likely want an upfront fee or their name in the newspapers. Profiteers usually stick together. Free market capitalism does not promote anarchy, but rule of law.
Like or Dislike: 10 5
Join or Die?
Is that a libertarian mantra?
You are a UN agent i bet.
Like or Dislike: 3 7
Funny, but no. It was the first American political cartoon by Benjamin Franklin. An anthem of the Sons of Liberty, and a calling to the states to join against the British.
Like or Dislike: 8 0
Bam! Ok, I like you… if that matters at all… you running for office anytime soon?
The market value of 250,000… How did you get that market value, using his name. Been to the site many times over the years but your link misdirects are not his problem- they are yours for piggy backing on his name directly. Maybe you should make redirects for every page you host and explain it to the paul camp to use different addresses their functions. Money to make your headache go away is not the answer.
Hotly debated. What do you think? 15 12
I bet this is a case of ill communication. I bet the Paul campaign hired these guys, and they’ve acted on their own assuming that Ron Paul wants your domain.
For all we know they didn’t even ask Ron. This is probably one of those “pay-us-and-we’ll-do-it-all-for-you” things and maybe they figured they wouldn’t even ask because they “knew” he’d want it.
Meaningless but kind of interesting to note: on their Wikipedia page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leclairryan) you’ll see a list of “notable people” and they’re all Democrats. Also interesting and equally meaningless: they’ve got some big banks on their list which would probably love to own and control this site.
Like or Dislike: 9 3
What Ron Paul is doing is wrong, theft is theft, eminent domain and intellectual property rights is statism.
Hotly debated. What do you think? 20 19
I think a lot of people are glossing over the fact that this is an attorney claiming to be acting on behalf of Ron Paul. For all we know, he didn’t ask Ron about any of this.
I bet what’s happening is that the campaign hired somebody back when all that slandering was running rampant, and now they’re just being a little overzealous.
Like or Dislike: 7 3
This does not bode well that the champion of liberty is trying to use the UN to take property. It makes me sad. Ron Paul was an inspiration. Now this.
Hotly debated. What do you think? 15 7
Oh I know, the heated debate over the ICANN policies and intellectual property rights has me confused across the board. Maybe we should bomb Iran after all…
One sime reflection should provide the resolution to this dispute. If your name as a domain was already taken, wouldn’t you just acceptit and find another domain? There are thousands of people that share a name. If the domain was so important to Ron, where was he to register? He failed to make a crucial decision when it was time, and someone with enough brain did it for him. Period.
I couldnt’t get my name as a domain because it was taken. End of story. To claim that a person’s name is intellectual property is the dumbest thing I’ve ever heard. Whoever thinks Ron Paul is right in his claim is an idiot.
Hotly debated. What do you think? 14 10
I support you guys. You were here first; thems the rules.
Highly rated. What do you think? 20 10
No well, actually, thems not the rules.
He went to the WIPO for arbitration, and they’re gonna be looking at thems ICANN rules before making a judgement.
dude, if Ron Paul wants RonPaul.com, then give it to him. And get your own life. End of story.
Hotly debated. What do you think? 31 30
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: 11 2
90% of what you said is correct… in fact, every point I’m about to make.. you made yourself. You see this clearly, I think… not sure why you’re on the fence.
“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”
* He is using a mechanism produced by the market, not by a government
* No one “owns” the domain, they lease it, and under conditions.
“So, on one hand I can see the argument that he’s trying to circumvent private property rights.”
I think he’s doing exactly what is appropriate.