Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 31 to 44 of 44

Thread: Israel Anderson: Ron Paul has NOT gone to the UN to strong-arm RonPaul.com

  1. #31

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Matt Collins View Post
    I don't think anyone is milking anyone. In fact Doug has been quote upfront and honest about what he is doing with Isagenix.

    Dunno if anyone in any of Ron's organizations actually owned RonPaul.com
    On a side note, can we discuss how Collins skims off the liberty movement and he doesn't seem to add much value? I find it a little nuts he is saying others are leeching off of RP given his situation.



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #32

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by annoy View Post
    Some of the people here are a bit thick.

    ICANN is a private entity which regulates these matters. When you register a domain, you are submitting yourself to their process and in the event of a dispute one must follow UDRP policy. This policy dictates that when there is a domain dispute, it can only be heard by a number of arbitration providers. That the owners of the domain are Australian means Paul is obliged to go to WIPO. There is no other choice. People saying he could instead pay the guys money miss the point: if someone came to your home and took your car, would you then pay money for it back? Paul believes he owns his trademark, so of course he is going to try to get it back. That he initially even asked how much they wanted shows he was willing to give something, but the RonPaul.com guys asked first for ~$850,000 and then lowered it to $250,000.

    The fact that WIPO was a UN created agency is incidental here. The whole issue is a private/arbitration matter. When people sign contracts often there'll be arbitration clauses that illustrate what should happen if there is a dispute. These proceedings are quicker and cheaper than courts. They're legal and it is a part of the free market that one can submit themselves to arbitration. Now, this doesn't impinge on the sovereignty of the courts (which would have been a legitimate gripe) because the matter can be appealed to the courts.

    WIPO is used because it predates ICANN and was an international IP forum that was in existence and already trusted. That ICANN uses it is incidental - it could use another private arbitration provider if it really wanted to. The UN has no power and thus the things Paul would ideologically oppose aren't in issue here.

    Furthermore, for those that think the RonPaul.com guys are just exercising their free market rights: wrong. Paul is arguing that he has a common law trademark of which the owners of the domain have used to unjustly enrich themselves. This is akin to theft, if proven. The free market does not protect theft or fraud. Paul does not want their site - they can keep it, their email list, and register another domain and be up in business in a few hours. And that is the telling part: the RonPaul.com guys KNOWINGLY used a name that is inarguably connected to the real Ron Paul. The only reason that site can generate anything is because of Ron Paul and all the efforts he has gone to throughout the years to spread his message - by books, interviews, etc.

    The fact that they've profited at all from that site for this many years is enough - as Paul can actually ask for not only the domain but compensation for their using his trademark through all this time. They post news that will garner hits and get money from adsense and they also sell Ron Paul merchandise. Has Paul asked for a cut, even, there? No; he just wants the domain.

    Really? Your first post here is to tell us we're all thick, ignore the other 500 pages of debate and then put out a bunch of boiler plate horse hockey that been discussed and debunked ad nauseum?

    You a Collinz sock?
    .[QUOTE]"Every great new thought was opposed. Every great new invention was denounced. The first motor was considered foolish. The airplane was considered impossible. The power loom was considered vicious. Anesthesia was considered sinful. But the men of unborrowed vision went ahead. They fought, they suffered and they paid. But they won." - Ayn Rand, The Fountainhead[/QUOTE]
    ..
    .

    I blog at Red State Eclectic, and I tweet here,.

  4. #33
    Member newbitech's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Tampa, FL
    Posts
    8,404
    Blog Entries
    3

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by annoy View Post
    Some of the people here are a bit thick.

    ICANN is a private entity which regulates these matters. When you register a domain, you are submitting yourself to their process and in the event of a dispute one must follow UDRP policy. This policy dictates that when there is a domain dispute, it can only be heard by a number of arbitration providers. That the owners of the domain are Australian means Paul is obliged to go to WIPO. There is no other choice. People saying he could instead pay the guys money miss the point: if someone came to your home and took your car, would you then pay money for it back? Paul believes he owns his trademark, so of course he is going to try to get it back. That he initially even asked how much they wanted shows he was willing to give something, but the RonPaul.com guys asked first for ~$850,000 and then lowered it to $250,000.

    The fact that WIPO was a UN created agency is incidental here. The whole issue is a private/arbitration matter. When people sign contracts often there'll be arbitration clauses that illustrate what should happen if there is a dispute. These proceedings are quicker and cheaper than courts. They're legal and it is a part of the free market that one can submit themselves to arbitration. Now, this doesn't impinge on the sovereignty of the courts (which would have been a legitimate gripe) because the matter can be appealed to the courts.

    WIPO is used because it predates ICANN and was an international IP forum that was in existence and already trusted. That ICANN uses it is incidental - it could use another private arbitration provider if it really wanted to. The UN has no power and thus the things Paul would ideologically oppose aren't in issue here.

    Furthermore, for those that think the RonPaul.com guys are just exercising their free market rights: wrong. Paul is arguing that he has a common law trademark of which the owners of the domain have used to unjustly enrich themselves. This is akin to theft, if proven. The free market does not protect theft or fraud. Paul does not want their site - they can keep it, their email list, and register another domain and be up in business in a few hours. And that is the telling part: the RonPaul.com guys KNOWINGLY used a name that is inarguably connected to the real Ron Paul. The only reason that site can generate anything is because of Ron Paul and all the efforts he has gone to throughout the years to spread his message - by books, interviews, etc.

    The fact that they've profited at all from that site for this many years is enough - as Paul can actually ask for not only the domain but compensation for their using his trademark through all this time. They post news that will garner hits and get money from adsense and they also sell Ron Paul merchandise. Has Paul asked for a cut, even, there? No; he just wants the domain.
    You registered in July 2012, this is your first post 7 months later. That is neither here not there, but between that and the first thing you type in these forums is

    "Some of the people here are a bit thick." is the reason why this is the first and only time I will respond to you.

    Your 3 UN paragraphs are flat dead ass wrong. You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about in this matter, and clearly you have not been following along the discussion here. I have discussed why all over these forums in the last couple days. Maybe someone else will bother with the details.

    I recognize this is your opinion and I am not challenging that. However, you are parroting an untruth about the UN thing, and that I do not appreciate.

    edit: p.s. the rest of what you think is misinformed as well. I see a shit ton of untruth driving your view here. Please consider peeling back a few layers.
    Last edited by newbitech; 02-13-2013 at 04:40 PM.

  5. #34

    Default

    The irony is I know exactly what I am talking about and I'm not going to list my credentials just to appease you. What about the above was wrong?

    The reason I chose to post is because there are people here parrotting themselves as Paul's supporters without actually understanding the basis of his ideologies...then turning around and insinuating that he is contradicting himself.

  6. #35

    Default

    Welcome to the forums!

    We are not, either, thick!

    I do, personally, agree this is a designated tribunal specified in the private domain owner agreement and rules for having a site.
    Last edited by sailingaway; 02-13-2013 at 06:39 PM.
    "Integrity means having to say things that people don't want to hear & especially to say things that the regime doesn't want to hear. -Ron Paul

    "Bathtub falls and police officers kill more Americans than terrorism, yet we've been asked to sacrifice our most sacred rights for fear of falling victim to it." -Edward Snowden

  7. #36

    Default

    Personally, I'm thinking we have too many threads on this subject, and am trying to figure out the best way to consolidate them, because stuff is being repeated then argued over and over in different threads.
    "Integrity means having to say things that people don't want to hear & especially to say things that the regime doesn't want to hear. -Ron Paul

    "Bathtub falls and police officers kill more Americans than terrorism, yet we've been asked to sacrifice our most sacred rights for fear of falling victim to it." -Edward Snowden

  8. #37

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sailingaway View Post
    Welcome to the forums!

    We are not, either, thick!

    I do, personally, agree this is a designated tribunal specified in the private domain owner agreement and rules for having a site.
    My post was a bit offensive, I'll own that. At the same time, it wasn't directed at everyone here - nor did it specify exactly who I am talking about. I'll retract that statement...let's keep it about the facts.

  9. #38

    Default

    First There is a free market for Domain Names.

    HOWEVER. People need to understand some things.

    1. You can set up your own server, to point to your site using ebay.com for example, and others could use your server for domain resolution. In effect all those users using your server, would in effect go to a completely and totally different ebay.com than those using the "normal" system.

    However, none of us would like for there to be 2000 different ebay.com's right, that would be confusing, as that would be determined by whatever server you decided to use for domain resolution.

    But you could do this. As in make your own version of the internet, using well established domain names. I could set it up whenever I typed google.com it'd go to make crappy web site, and you could use it to do the same thing.

    Now, NO ONE, wants that and everyone wants to go to the version of google or ebay recognized by the "Centralized Authority" we are all arguing about, when they type that in, thus 99.9% of the internet community think it's a good idea to have a "CENTRAL" Authority to make sure that ebay.com points to where the recognized owner of that domain says it should point.

    So, by YOU, using the "regular" internet with standard domain names pointing to the same location(S) wherever you are at, and using regular DNS servers, and using Domain Name Sellers like Godaddy, you are submitting to that central authority, as you could in theory not use that system, and even convince others to use your system.

    AND in this system that you are using right now to find all your favorite sites like clockwork which you implicitly condone and enjoy the benefits of (a functional domain system), you agree to abide by a set of rules (YOU CAN MAKE YOUR OWN SYSTEM, BUT NO ONE WILL USE IT), and in those rules there are certain stipulations about trademarks, and identity, which the vast majority of the planet agrees are reasonable.

    So, for all this talk of "FREE MARKET", you can select not to use the stable rational system of domain ownership, and set up your own system. You really can, but very very few do, as it would suck, if on one system ebay.com was the leading auction site, then on another it was transvestite fetish porn. LOL.

    Anyway, Legally, and in the Free Market even, Ron Paul has every right to just take Ronpaul.com. As no one made them use that domain name, no one made them select to use the "standard Centralized" system.

    So, ICANN is sort of like a Business you select to use, no one makes you use it, you could have a domain name system for yourself, and those you could convince to use it. Now, they are a near total monopoly, but that is the free markets decision. The real Google wouldn't index you though, nor find you for that matter, nor most of those selecting to use the centralized system.

  10. #39

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RonPaulIsGreat View Post
    Anyway, Legally, and in the Free Market even, Ron Paul has every right to just take Ronpaul.com. As no one made them use that domain name, no one made them select to use the "standard Centralized" system.
    Searching PeopleSmart brings up 50 Ron Pauls.

    Can any of those "just take" Ronpaul.com from the politician Ron Paul? Why not, if the politician can take it from the current owners- or, renters?

    Funny all the zig zagging around a simple statement: There is a free market for domain names. Yes they're rented, but there's a free market for them. I have 4 up for sale right now. No one is going to "just take" them either.
    "If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear." -- George Orwell

  11. #40

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Peace Piper View Post
    Searching PeopleSmart brings up 50 Ron Pauls.

    Can any of those "just take" Ronpaul.com from the politician Ron Paul? Why not, if the politician can take it from the current owners- or, renters?

    Funny all the zig zagging around a simple statement: There is a free market for domain names. Yes they're rented, but there's a free market for them. I have 4 up for sale right now. No one is going to "just take" them either.
    this has been discussed a bunch. It is 'our' Ron Paul whose face has been all over it etc. so he is the one who has a claim the guy who owns it violated the domain terms he agreed to prohibiting use of someone else's trademark and various other stuff. the domain rules say when the guy whose name it is gets the site, and that is what the claim is about. This isn't 'Ron Paul Rules!' or something it is something confused a number of times by media with being Ron's own site.
    "Integrity means having to say things that people don't want to hear & especially to say things that the regime doesn't want to hear. -Ron Paul

    "Bathtub falls and police officers kill more Americans than terrorism, yet we've been asked to sacrifice our most sacred rights for fear of falling victim to it." -Edward Snowden

  12. #41

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by schiffheadbaby View Post
    On a side note, can we discuss how Collins skims off the liberty movement and he doesn't seem to add much value? I find it a little nuts he is saying others are leeching off of RP given his situation.
    I haven't skimmed off the liberty movement, and if you don't know what I actually do, then you must be new here
    __________________________________________________ ________________
    this space for rent

  13. #42

    Default

    you use roads, mailboxes, and you pay taxes that directly kill children

    does that mean you endorse everything the government does? is ron paul endorsing UN?

    people are so fucking stupid here. EVERY one of you here pays taxes, please move overseas right now and die with the children hit by drone missiles. why the fuck are you sitting here comfortably and typing about some guy named ron paul?

    some sickening purists you all are
    Last edited by jtstellar; 02-13-2013 at 11:32 PM.

  14. #43
    Member newbitech's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Tampa, FL
    Posts
    8,404
    Blog Entries
    3

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RonPaulIsGreat View Post
    First There is a free market for Domain Names.

    HOWEVER. People need to understand some things.

    1. You can set up your own server, to point to your site using ebay.com for example, and others could use your server for domain resolution. In effect all those users using your server, would in effect go to a completely and totally different ebay.com than those using the "normal" system.

    However, none of us would like for there to be 2000 different ebay.com's right, that would be confusing, as that would be determined by whatever server you decided to use for domain resolution.

    But you could do this. As in make your own version of the internet, using well established domain names. I could set it up whenever I typed google.com it'd go to make crappy web site, and you could use it to do the same thing.

    Now, NO ONE, wants that and everyone wants to go to the version of google or ebay recognized by the "Centralized Authority" we are all arguing about, when they type that in, thus 99.9% of the internet community think it's a good idea to have a "CENTRAL" Authority to make sure that ebay.com points to where the recognized owner of that domain says it should point.

    So, by YOU, using the "regular" internet with standard domain names pointing to the same location(S) wherever you are at, and using regular DNS servers, and using Domain Name Sellers like Godaddy, you are submitting to that central authority, as you could in theory not use that system, and even convince others to use your system.

    AND in this system that you are using right now to find all your favorite sites like clockwork which you implicitly condone and enjoy the benefits of (a functional domain system), you agree to abide by a set of rules (YOU CAN MAKE YOUR OWN SYSTEM, BUT NO ONE WILL USE IT), and in those rules there are certain stipulations about trademarks, and identity, which the vast majority of the planet agrees are reasonable.

    So, for all this talk of "FREE MARKET", you can select not to use the stable rational system of domain ownership, and set up your own system. You really can, but very very few do, as it would suck, if on one system ebay.com was the leading auction site, then on another it was transvestite fetish porn. LOL.

    Anyway, Legally, and in the Free Market even, Ron Paul has every right to just take Ronpaul.com. As no one made them use that domain name, no one made them select to use the "standard Centralized" system.

    So, ICANN is sort of like a Business you select to use, no one makes you use it, you could have a domain name system for yourself, and those you could convince to use it. Now, they are a near total monopoly, but that is the free markets decision. The real Google wouldn't index you though, nor find you for that matter, nor most of those selecting to use the centralized system.
    good post.

    I am sure if he got ron.paul running for his radio show, there would be a couple million people learning how to configure their adapters real quick. Then he could get any old 1 page site that had a setup script run to do the config automated. and just pass that linkage around.

    Then, when someone wanted Ron Paul they could just tune in to his channel with their computers.

    But, people don't want that. they want Icann and wipo and un like shit going on. Why? cause they are too lazy to find out WHY. Or just have better things to do and think they can afford to ignore this.

  15. #44

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Peace Piper View Post
    Searching PeopleSmart brings up 50 Ron Pauls.

    Can any of those "just take" Ronpaul.com from the politician Ron Paul? Why not, if the politician can take it from the current owners- or, renters?
    One look at RonPaul.com and you know which specific Ron Paul it's making money off of.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12




« Previous Thread | Next Thread »


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •