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

[P3ter_Griffin]

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]

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]

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. 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 in perpetutiy.

 

[angelatc]

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]

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]

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.