so what's the new argument? that ron paul shouldn't even have the right to dispute like all other citizens? this keeps getting more hilarious by the day
so half a dozen anonymous disagreements. anymore? that the best you have?
so what's the new argument? that ron paul shouldn't even have the right to dispute like all other citizens? this keeps getting more hilarious by the day
so half a dozen anonymous disagreements. anymore? that the best you have?
This is a fundamental question about whether Ron truly supports private property rights.Originally Posted by jtstellar
domains are subject to contractual provisions to begin with, however.
"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
“To avoid criticism say nothing, do nothing, be nothing.” ― Aristotle
“The mind, once stretched by a new idea, never returns to its original dimensions.”― Ralph Waldo Emerson
The only way to crush the bones of the enemy that is endangering the United States today is by laying down a foundation of philosophy. This would be the American Movement! Get your minds off the stupid two party system! The two party system wasn't the advancement over the U.S. Constitution! It was the American Movement led by the American transcendentalists later on who saved the Union by returning the people to revering our Founders, to cherishing the new order they declared within The Declaration of Independence, and to honor the laws instituted within the U.S. Constitution they established to further advance that new order!
I suspect that it is people that work for Ron that are behind this. Maybe this is being used as leverage to negotiate a better price. Who knows? If Ron wants the domain that badly I don't see why he doesn't just pay its current market value, even though he can force an ICANN arbitration.
U.S. Air Force Veteran
Find Liberty Candidates for the 2012 Election at Liberty Candidates United
Restoring the Republic one election at a time
I would like to see the agreement that Ron Paul signed when the .org was in his control. I wonder if it contains the same clause that the current agreements do, which state that failure to pay for the site shall be construed as consent to transfer the site to new ownership.
.
.
.
I blog at Red State Eclectic, I totally tweet here, I sell stuff here, and also here. Liberty rocks!
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
I dont think so.. it would sold on ebay to the current owners.
It certainly is out of character for Ron.. I will say that..
Domain names aren't property to be owned, people. They're rented out and the landlord has certain rules. Who here thinks it's a violation of private property rights for an apartment manager to prohibit smoking? Well, the landlord renting out ronpaul.com says you can't take someone else's name and profit from it.
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.
Last edited by annoy; 02-13-2013 at 03:54 PM.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
