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.
Let Ron Paul have the domain. He caved to the UN. Don’t let him have the emails.
Like or Dislike: 1 1
After reading the materials, I am on Ron Paul’s side. It is unfortunate that you word this article in such a propaganda-ish way, although I suppose I would too for this amount of money. Capitalism at its finest.
Like or Dislike: 3 1
the point of this website is to support Ron Paul but when he wants the own the website himself it’s a problem? what does it matter if you continue to use the website or not? im sure the mailing list can be kept and used regardless of who owns this website.
Like or Dislike: 4 5
No, it’s a problem that he will not allow the free market to function. He could buy this web site for $250k instead of asking scary ol’ BIG GOVERNMENT to steal it from the captains of industry who created it.
Like or Dislike: 12 3
Ron Paul’s site is being domain squatted by a bunch of his fans, who are using libertarian principles (i.e., holding it hostage for cash) to hold on to it. The good doctor repsonds by using the UN, source of all evil (depending on the amount of tinfoil on your head) to get it back.
BWAH HA HA HA!!!!!!!
Libertarianism at its finest. You people are friggin’ idiots.
Like or Dislike: 11 3
Aaahaahahahaha… look at your libertarian messiah running to the bosom of the United Nations. This is almost as good as Ayn Rand’s use of Social Security and Medicare.
It’s easy to proclaim yourself a purestrain capitalist until you realize government just might have something to offer!
Like or Dislike: 5 3
What part libertarianism ever said that government does not have anything to offer? Libertarianism emphasizes liberty, not anarchy, do understand the difference?
Here, I’ll help:
Liberty suggests that the government should not be able to impose laws on you that restrict your personal freedom or privacy when you are not doing anything to hurt anyone else.
Anarchy suggests that there should not be a government at all.
When two people interact, however, especially when property is exchanged, there is room for government regulation as long as that regulation does not negatively impact the involved parties disproportionately or reduce the ability for fair interactions to take place.
Yeah, I bet you understand now. Go on, call me an “asshat” or something equally clever.
Like or Dislike: 0 0
I think it’s only right that you give the man his name back. You can use “Ronpaulstuff”, or something like that.
Like or Dislike: 5 2
I, too, am very disappointed that Ron Paul has taken this course of action.
I’m also terribly disappointed in Lew Rockwell’s comments. He knows very well that this is not a case of cybersquatting.
There is a disturbing thing that I’ve noticed about Lew over the years. I love his website — I visit it every day. Though he’s a great writer and speaker, if he says that some person or organization supports or stands for X, you better check it out for yourself.
There have been several times that I’ve seen Lew post something like, “[Cato, Reason, LP, Bob, etc.] supports potrzebie!” He may be right, but I’ve discovered that he’ll often stretch the truth or just outright misrepresent the position. No, you can’t suspend your judgment, but there are some people you’d like to not have to fact check.
I hate to see this from Ron Paul and especially Lew. While it does not shake my libertarian foundations, it puts a little doubt in the back of my mind about them.
Ron Paul and his campaign has plenty of funds Im sure from all the donations. He could easily offer you double the amount… $500,000 and be done with it. Has he done that? Would you accept that? I do believe he should get this domain name ultimately, but at a reasonable cost. Without WE THE PEOPLE supporting him, there would absolutely be no Ron Paul to speak of and he would not be attempting to buy this domain name.
Shame on you Ron. In 2008 I knew something was ODD when you suddenly dropped out of the race. When there was fraud all around and you did nothing. In 2012 I toned down my support for you, instead switching to “liberty” as my call to everyone to support, not a mans name. I was right. You bailed on us again. First your stupid son. Then you and stopping all of your incredible rallies. You just stopped them all. Didnt make sense. Then more election fraud which you did nothing about.
Ron Paul, you are a coward. Thats what you are. ANYONE can talk the talk at rallies and on stage, but you have always backed down when the going got tough. For this, you dont deserve my respect anymore.
Like or Dislike: 4 9
And without Ron Paul, WE THE PEOPLE would still be sheep sleeping away in the wilderness of government entitlements.
What came firs the chicken or the egg?
Well Ron Paul has been fighting for our Constitution long before MOST of us knew the what the Constitution WAS!
At first I read the headlines and thought it was a joke. No way would Dr.Paul give credence to the UN. We are in deep trouble folks. Look you guys should not have to give up your websites. Dr. Paul is RETIRING. Why don’t we understand this? His filing with the UN is a act of a Traitor. He has been giving us bits and pieces for years ….stringing us along. Wake up. beholdapalehorse.tv
Like or Dislike: 2 9
I am not a lawyer but it seems that neither Ron Paul nor the UN is allowed to take the domains down. The law is very simple. When the domains were registered Ron Paul was not a protected trademark. I think it still isn t. Even if they wanted 2.5 Million Dollars for the domains, Ron Paul would have to pay. This Ron Paul has the same right just like any other Ron Paul in the world. If “MyName.com” is taken, it is taken.
Like or Dislike: 7 4
He trademarked his name in 1982 after his first book was written…Read the actual documentation and it lays out the facts quite clearly. Also, if you have to start off saying “I am not a lawyer but…”, you probably are not qualified to announce the simplicity of an International law and render judgement on the matter especially having not even read the actual claims regarding the case.
Like or Dislike: 0 1
Mmmmmmhh…No. He did not in fact trademark his name.
He only uses it “as a mark in trade”, i.e. he uses his name commercially to sell his books etc. This is not at all the same thing.
The complaint explicitly talks about a “common-law trademark”. It is not registered as a trademark, it is only used as such.
Much weaker tea.
Like or Dislike: 1 0
I agree with you regarding the name-rights of the domains. But judges could require the content of the sites not to be related with the politician ron paul. In this case the domains would remain in the ownership of the current owners. But they were not allowed to publish Ron-Paul-related content.
Amazing to see how Dr. Paul “supporters”, who are SUPPOSED to be well-read and knowledgable, sit here bashing him before they even bother to read the complaint. Read first and act later, hypocrites.
Like or Dislike: 10 2
Shouldn’t Libertarians and conservatives move on and start supporting Gary Johnson for 2016? The time is now.
Like or Dislike: 6 4
WE SHOULD CREATE A KICKSTARTER CAMPAIGN TO GET YOU YOUR MONEY & RON PAUL THE DOMAIN NAME HE WANTS. We could easily raise the funds.
Like or Dislike: 1 2
I understand that you registered the domain to protect it from some bad person that might have come and taken the domain. In this hypothetical, how would the bad person have acted differently than you are acting now?
Hotly debated. What do you think? 15 7
If you really were a Ron Paul supporter you would do everything and anything to support HIS movement, because ultimately without him your website is nothing. Ron Paul’s name and LIFE’s work have created everything you think you’ve obtained.
You think your mailing list, and google search traffic have ANYTHING to do with the compelling articles you write? What a joke. Your attacks on Ron Paul and attempts to make him look less than who we all know he is are both feeble and show exactly where you stand in the support of liberty.
As any true Patriot of libery would do, the domain should be offered up at cost of expenses and registration to run the site for the period in which it was registered to you. No less, no more.
You should be ashamed of yourself for trying to capitalize on the man who has and will always try to save this country. You should feel ashamed of yourself for looking at monetary gain from the man who could actually use it to do real work towards Liberty. You are doing nothing but hindering that process as all you do is regurgitate the things Ron Paul creates out doing real life things. Ron Paul creates the news! While Ron Paul is out tirelessly working for a movement of liberty. You’re looking to capitalize on that movement. Shame on you.
Hotly debated. What do you think? 17 9
Now that you have found out the hard way he is just another POLITICIAN I say shut it down, dont give him anything. I would destroy any and all things related to it. Make him start from nothing like you did. We all want a hero but sadly its NOT Ron Paul. When it came down to it, Mr. anti government went to the U.N. of all places to “tell” on you for not ignoring all your work and just handing over all you have done. Whether he and his cronies realize it it took a lot of work to build what you did. No compensation = NO PRODUCT.
Like or Dislike: 8 11
“Make him start from nothing like you did.”
Keith, he didn’t start from nothing. He started with a domain named after a mega popular brand. In fact, it was Ron Paul who started with nothing.
You all did a fantastic job with this site. Please return it to Ron Paul and give up your selfish ambitions.
Ron Paul can do more with this site than you all. He is working on a major project, maybe a feature film.
This domain is his trademark. As capitalists you should respect trademarks.
Hotly debated. What do you think? 16 13
You say you want the old Ron Paul back? This means you still haven’t figured it out. Ron Paul hasn’t changed, you’ve changed. You’ve become aware of what a sleazy, self-involved con-man he is. You don’t want the old Ron Paul back, you just want your illusion back. Stop dreaming and stay here in the real world with those of us who always saw Ron Paul for what he is.
Like or Dislike: 9 3
I want to thank you, Greg, for introducing all of those new facts into my life.
In an age of disinformation, at least we have folks like you who have researched the issues and find increasingly clever ways to organize the data in wonderful formats for our consumption.
The way you transition from “con-man” to “sleazy” was true brilliance. You make it look so easy. Have you thought of putting this into a documentary?
If so, please let me know, I want to be first in line.
I think you have misunderstood the offer. From their letter, they are offering the dot-org website for free… or they are offering to sell the dot-com site & mailing list for $250k. It seems like quite a reasonable offer by the owners of this website.
Like or Dislike: 5 4
No, the $250,000 is clearly stated in the email they sent to dr.Paul to be strictly for the purchase of the dot-com domain adding that with that they would give hime the mailing list as a “free bonus” because they are well aware the mailing list is useless to them( most if not all are more than likely on his campaign lists). Read the actual email, they pull a little word trickery in their blog post to drum up support and portray themselves as the victims of an unjust Ron Paul assault.
Like or Dislike: 2 0
Well, I agree with you on just about everything you said.
But in fairness, we should be clear, the owner offered RonPaul.org with zero strings attached.
“To avoid these complications we’d like to offer you an alternative domain name, RonPaul.org, for your new website at no cost whatsoever.”
I stand by Dr Paul on this whole mess, the $250k figure is outrageous, but its worth mentioning that the site owner did make a nice gesture.
I’m definitely not thrilled about Ron Paul going to the UN and I’m not going to simply claim that you are only making money off Ron Paul. You developed this site, have maintained the content and created a valuable user experience. Otherwise people wouldn’t return to your site or care to be on your mailing list.
That said, it seems the solution here is simple and easy. You take the .org, 301 redirecting from the .com to the .org. Maintain control over the .com for 60 days to ensure the transfer was completed and give up the .com. You will lose traffic to type ins, but you will still be in the top results if the transfer is done correctly.
Here is the reality. 1) You will lose this domain. Whether you agree with the course of action or not doesn’t matter. The legal framework is not on your side.
2) Your fans/visitors are likely more loyal to Ron Paul than they are to you. However, if this dispute causes a divide, Ron Paul’s name as a brand will be devalued. The baby is being cut in half here. It’s currently a no win.
3) Your email list isn’t valuable to RP. He likely has a good majority of them already in any lists he has. There is bound to be a ton of overlap here.
Given these facts, it makes more sense on your part to give up the .com in agreement to keep .org and do so on terms that will make a domain transfer easier and reduce the risk associated. Again, you will lose the .com. The only ones who win here are the lawyers and opponents of Ron Paul.
Well said Matt…but you forgot something…Ron Paul is attempting to seize BOTH ronpaul.com AND ronpaul.org
So they would have to find another domain to carry out your suggestions.
… and, dot orgs are strictly not for profit.
I think taking down the Ron Paul tshirts might be a little more than RP.com wants to give up.
I also think you sharply over estimate how “divided” the Ron Paul supporters will be over this issue. Its not even 50/50 here, on the site in question.
If it became even a 2% factor, Ron Paul would post a video explaining his thoughts and actions and he’d be back in business. So far, he’s said nothing publicly, so its probably not that big of a deal.