PDA

View Full Version : Hallowed Be Thy Name: Ron Paul Tries to Retrieve RonPaul.com




sailingaway
03-19-2013, 10:35 AM
Hallowed Be Thy Name: Ron Paul Tries to Retrieve RonPaul.com


Now that he’s no longer giving speeches on Capitol Hill, Ron Paul’s main platform for spreading his libertarian message is the Web. He’d like for his command center to be RonPaul.com. But right now, that domain name is owned by a cohort of his supporters, who since 2008 have used the address to post Paul-related news.

There is an existential logic behind Paul’s desire to own his eponymous domain. “Everybody knows that RonPaul.com should be Ron Paul,” the former congressman said when TIME spoke with him recently about life after Congress. “It’s your identity.” Yet the owners, including Tim Martin, who via email identifies the group as several expats living in Panama, aren’t ready to hand it over. That means recovering the address won’t be as simple as Paul’s reasoning.

[discussion of legal framework]

So how will Paul’s case fair? Attorney Ari Goldberger, who won the case against Bloomberg in 2001, says that Paul’s seven books could help the former congressman establish a common law trademark. The fact that the site links to unofficial merchandise suggests the owners have tried to profit off Paul’s name, Goldberger says. Another point for Paul’s case is his allegation that the owners attempted to sell him RonPaul.com for $848,000, and then for $250,000 before the complaint was filed. On the other hand, RonPaul.com’s owners have long displayed a disclaimer saying the “fan site” is not officially associated with Paul, and they’ve produced nearly five years of posts about liberty and Paul’s sundry campaigns, which makes it hard to argue that they were all about the money from the outset.

Martin says that the owners started to make “a little” money off the merchandise starting in 2010 and that the offer to sell the domain name for $848,000 “was apparently made by the former owner.” He emphasizes that their offer to sell the site for $250,000 included a mailing list of 170,000 Paul supporters. And he says they would have handed over the domain name for free if they felt had shown that “he honors and appreciates our hard work and support.”

The arbitrator is currently weighing all these arguments. In the end, Paul knows he may instead have to make do with a domain like DrRonPaul.com. Having the eponymous domain name “would be helpful,” he says. “But I figure if the name’s the whole thing, then my message isn’t strong enough.”



Read more: http://swampland.time.com/2013/03/19/hallowed-be-thy-name-ron-paul-tries-to-retrieve-ronpaul-com/#ixzz2NzeV1Sao

green73
03-19-2013, 01:03 PM
From Lew Rockwell (http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/134098.html)


Here are the Alexa traffic rankings in the US only of 3 Ron sites:

DailyPaul.com: 3,638
RonPaulForums.com: 12,860
RonPaul.com: 60,953

K466
03-19-2013, 01:03 PM
Informative article, thanks.

angelatc
03-19-2013, 01:34 PM
Sailing, I am literally laughing out loud at your "discussion of legal framework" euphamism. Everybody else should check out the rest of the article. The author take no position as to how this might work out, and gives at least two examples where public figures have failed in their attempts to bully the domain rights away from people who registered them first.

sailingaway
03-19-2013, 01:36 PM
I took out what has already been discussed forever, but gave the link. That wasn't the part I was interested in. I left in the part where he said there were points on both sides, which we all already know. If you think I tailored it out of anything but finding the part that interested me, you are mistaken.

CPUd
03-19-2013, 02:13 PM
http://i.imgur.com/A2B7r9h.jpg


http://cdn.videogum.com/files/2011/07/turntable.gif

S.Shorland
03-19-2013, 02:16 PM
I'll be glad when nobody posts about this or it is over

jbauer
03-19-2013, 04:37 PM
just pay the f'ing money. It belongs to who it belongs to. Pay up Ron.

satchelmcqueen
03-19-2013, 04:47 PM
i must agree.
just pay the f'ing money. It belongs to who it belongs to. Pay up Ron.

torchbearer
03-19-2013, 05:01 PM
just pay the f'ing money. It belongs to who it belongs to. Pay up Ron.
its not owned property, its a lease from an association. the association has rules to the lease. a lease for a phone director that has only one ron paul listed. when you dial ron paul, you don't get a ron paul.

FriedChicken
03-19-2013, 08:20 PM
I must say I'm disappointed that he insists on getting the domain for nothing ... the owners of the site are responsible for bringing me to "liberty awareness" - they've surely been a help to the movement.
I know Ron wants the site but they've offered him a fair price that, I don't mean to sound cold here, he can more than afford. One month of his book sales could probably pay for it, maybe two months.

If not that than 3 speaking engagements would.

I'm perfectly fine with him making money on his hard work an efforts, its deserved.
But if he wants to buy the domain name than ... well ... buy it.

I'd say the exact same thing if Rick Santorum was having the same "problem" only I'd be much more harsh about it, to be honest.

Peace&Freedom
03-19-2013, 09:56 PM
I'd have to agree with the above. The owner of ronpaul.com may not be nice, yet is the owner, and indeed owns something valuable. Paul can afford it, and especially given he agrees it's valuable, should simply overrule the Bentonistas in his group and buy the thing, end of controversy.

sailingaway
03-19-2013, 10:01 PM
But Ron's name and persona are also valuable, and he is the one who made them so, and if they continue to be valuable, it will be because of what he does.

But the point is the domain license was given on certain contractual terms, and if the domain registrant violated the terms of the domain contract, he didn't 'own' any rights to do so. That is what the claim will determine. Ron did try to buy it first, but somewhere decided the guy returned his good will above and beyond the law with bad faith, it seems. He may be wrong. I used to have a lot more sympathy with the site owner before he tried to trash Ron everywhere as 'going to the UN' for using a contractually designated arbitration forum, in the registrant's own contract. At this point, I just want it over with. I wish they'd settle, but the claim will decide who is right under the rules of the domain.

RickyJ
03-19-2013, 10:17 PM
This is all so silly. The domain name could be TheFreedomMessage.com and it would still get tons of traffic if it had the right speakers and message on it. I honestly don't see what is wrong with the ronpaul.org name they offered him for free. It doesn't have to be .com to be popular.

sailingaway
03-19-2013, 10:22 PM
This is all so silly. The domain name could be TheFreedomMessage.com and it would still get tons of traffic if it had the right speakers and message on it. I honestly don't see what is wrong with the ronpaul.org name they offered him for free. It doesn't have to be .com to be popular.

Well it sounds like if he loses he doesn't plan to take it to court, just move on, so it will be what it will be, and over soon one way or the other.

TaftFan
03-19-2013, 10:25 PM
From Lew Rockwell (http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/134098.html)

I would welcome a suit against the DailyPaul.

That site has turned into garbage.

TaftFan
03-19-2013, 10:26 PM
This is all so silly. The domain name could be TheFreedomMessage.com and it would still get tons of traffic if it had the right speakers and message on it. I honestly don't see what is wrong with the ronpaul.org name they offered him for free. It doesn't have to be .com to be popular.
I would have taken .org

It is more reputable sounding

sailingaway
03-19-2013, 10:26 PM
I would welcome a suit against the DailyPaul.

That site has turned into garbage.

It is pretty clearly a fan site and doesn't even have his picture up any more.

Whatever you don't like about what Michael is doing with his own site now, he filled a gap amazingly for years, out of conviction.

fr33
03-19-2013, 10:29 PM
In a free society .com wouldn't automatically be worth anything.

We don't live in a free society.

In a free society people like Ron Paul wouldn't feel the need to become a public official for some "supporter" to leech off of. There would be no need.

At the very least this domain owner has no moral high ground claim against Ron's actions against him.

PierzStyx
03-20-2013, 02:53 AM
just pay the f'ing money. It belongs to who it belongs to. Pay up Ron.

Ron Paul's name, image, and reputation all belong to him, they are part of his personhood. They are his property. These people have essentially taken that and used it for personal profit. Ron owes them nothing for such thievery. That they would date make him pay them for what is his is OUTRAGEOUS. They should get nothing for the site and be thankful he isn't demanding royalties.

P3ter_Griffin
03-20-2013, 12:51 PM
Ron was recently asked about IP rights on either his podcast or an interview, I forget which. His response was basically that someone shouldn't be able to plagiarize his books but that IP rights have gone to far. He didn't comment on the website specifically but my feeling from his answer is that he would philosophically oppose what he's doing. I think reasoning like “Everybody knows that RonPaul.com should be Ron Paul,” and “It’s your identity.” speak to this point, as Ron normally brings much better arguments than this to show why he believes what he believes. But he is himself, so what do I know?

Either way I'm ready for this to be finished. I'm excited to see what Ron's plans are for his website. And too I want to get a Ron Paul/C4L vehicle wrap for my truck but I need to know what his domain name will be first. I'm personally hoping for DrRonPaul.com (which was suggest here on RPF before this article) because I find it more appealing than RonPaul.com.

sailingaway
03-20-2013, 12:55 PM
this is a contract issue, not just strictly IP, the domain has rules and a forum for deciding if someone violated terms of use. The forum will decide yes or no, and we can move on.

The Free Hornet
03-20-2013, 03:21 PM
just pay the f'ing money. It belongs to who it belongs to. Pay up Ron.

Has the pretend "owner" been discovered yet? The actual owner is ICANN.


I must say I'm disappointed that he insists on getting the domain for nothing ...

Where is your reference? In particular, the word "insists".


The owner of ronpaul.com may not be nice, yet is the owner, and indeed owns something valuable.

The current registrant of ronpaul.com is not the owner of anything in dispute. The owner is ICANN. As to its value, we'll know more about that after the real owner's arbitration speaks (http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/case.jsp?case_id=25846). Or do you only believe in imaginary property and not actual property? ICANN owns a DNS root server and controls ".com". They have physical ownership. The registrant of ronpaul.com only owns or rents the server. The DNS information relating ronpaul.com to their server is only something they have by staying in the good graces of ICANN.

Do you have any pro-IP conflicts? If you believe in the IP BS, then the "Ron Paul" trademark angle suggests that Ron Paul should get the domain name. OTOH, if you believe in non-government IP (which is sort of what ICANN is, sort of), then the dispute is entirely in the hands of ICANN and you don't have an opinion one way or the other (unless you believe in these techno beanie babies).

Would you buy a parcel of land you already own? Maybe. Let's say it is unclear who owns that land, you or your neighbor. Do you just pay them $250,000 becaue you can "afford it"? The land is only worth 50,000 to you even if there are 180,000 Monsanto cornstalks growing on it. As you don't see eye-to-eye and ownership/control is unclear... what do you do?


Paul can afford it, and especially given he agrees it's valuable, should simply overrule the Bentonistas in his group and buy the thing, end of controversy.

You can afford the $0.0006/year it would take to fund Ron Paul's pension but he had the descency not to take your fraction of a cent (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_pension#Controversy) in perpetutiy.

angelatc
03-20-2013, 03:36 PM
Ron Paul didn't seem to care when people were selling everything and everything with his name on it for personal profit, probably because it was free political advertising for him. Now and only now - he's decided they're "entitled" to the domain, even though Ron Paul's legal proxies have turned down the domain purchase in the past.

Apparently "It's not about the man, it's about the message," has turned into "It's all about deciding who is allowed to profit from marketing the man."

sailingaway
03-20-2013, 03:37 PM
Ron Paul didn't seem to care when people were selling everything and everything with his name on it for personal profit, probably because it was free political advertising for him. Now and only now - he's decided they're "entitled" to the domain, even though Ron Paul's legal proxies have turned down the domain purchase in the past.

Apparently "It's not about the man, it's about the message," has turned into "It's the man."

I really disagree on so many points, one of which being that he could be claiming royalties and isn't. He just wants to use his own name. And he is the reason his name means anything.

angelatc
03-20-2013, 03:38 PM
I really disagree on so many points, one of which being that he could be claiming royalties and isn't. He just wants to use his own name.


My heart bleeds for him. It really, really does.