Ron Paul tweets on RonPaul.com Issue - and discussion

[green73]

https://twitter.com/RonPaul/status/301743904997404673

http://tinyurl.com/aata5cf

 

[green73]

Here's what it links to

'RonPaul'.com
Posted by Lew Rockwell on February 13, 2013 08:31 AM

There is so much disinformation on this issue that I will probably have to post more than once, but here are a few points:

--Ron is not using the State to acquire RonPaul.com. He could have brought a lawsuit in US government courts, but he did not. He is seeking to have ICANN enforce its own rules against cybersquatting, including the rule against registering a famous person’s name and making money off it. Anyone registering a URL agrees to keep all the rules, just as he must pay a recurring fee. A URL is not private property in the normal sense. It is a license, and ICANN is a private, non-profit organization.

--Ron is not calling on the UN. ICANN has four approved arbitration organizations. Because the RP.com guys registered Ron's name in Australia, the international arbitration option must be used. Yes, it is associated with the UN. Too bad, but one must play the cards one is dealt. The UN itself is not involved, though note—whatever else is wrong with it—the UN is not a State.

--Why did Ron wait so long to bring this claim? He did not feel he could do so as a public official. Once he became a private citizen again, he was freed.

--This fight is not about so-called intellectual property, since it involves private agreements. But if it were, must one agree with Murray Rothbard--who discussed IP more than 50 years ago--to be a libertarian? I agree with Murray, but IP is hardly a make or break issue. Certainly Murray did not see it as such. In the same sense, one need not be an anarcho-capitalist to be a libertarian, though, like Murray, I am one. One can be a constitutionalist or otherwise believe in limited government. Oh, and need I note that Murray loved and admired Ron?

--Is Ron "attacking his own supporters" by his action? Apparently, the RP.com people have never given a dime to any of his campaigns nor educational efforts. Instead, they are attacking Ron. Some supporters. But it will not work. And it will soon be over, freeing Ron from this distraction as he steps up his fight for freedom. Really steps it up, in historic ways.

 

[ninepointfive]

hopefully the current owners win the arbitration.

 

[CaptUSA]

hopefully the current owners win the arbitration.

Interesting...

I really hate getting caught up in this because it's about things and not ideas, but seeing as the people who own the site call it a fan site and they seem to be suggesting that they are no longer fans, I have to wonder why they would still want the site.

I don't really care one way or another, but I would think a reasonable agreement would be able to be reached among like-minded individuals.

 

[asurfaholic]

I have been waiting for this. Makes sense, I guess ron paul doesnt believe someone else should be able to own his name and profit from his name. Seems reasonable.

I hope he gets the site.

 

[ninepointfive]

Ron just needs to pay a fair price and all is well.

 

[cero]

^^ screw that they been making money off Ron's name for the past 5 years, he should get it for free

 

[ninepointfive]

^^ screw that they been making money off Ron's name for the past 5 years, he should get it for free

the owners say it has been at a loss

 

[PatriotOne]

Why did Ron wait so long to bring this claim? He did not feel he could do so as a public official. Once he became a private citizen again, he was freed.

I didn't know for sure, but I thought that might be the reason he waited to take action.

 

[newbitech]

Why did Ron wait so long to bring this claim? He did not feel he could do so as a public official. Once he became a private citizen again, he was freed.

I didn't know for sure, but I thought that might be the reason he waited to take action.

shameful, the part about the UN is a LIE (or ignorance, take your pick).

 

[kcchiefs6465]

the owners say it has been at a loss

Source? I really doubt that the website operated at a loss. I have asked the owner a couple times now how much he was making off of ad revenue and merchandise. He has not responded either way. Should he simply state that ronpaul.com operated at a loss without providing specifics and evidence I will have lost more respect for him and his site. (I am 99.99% certain that the site would generate a hell of a lot more than he possibly spent on the upkeep etc) The more I read about it, the more I am on Ron Paul's side of the argument.

 

[kcchiefs6465]

shameful, the part about the UN is a LIE (or ignorance, take your pick).

What part specifically?

 

[newbitech]

What part specifically?

Because the RP.com guys registered Ron's name in Australia, the international arbitration option must be used. Yes, it is associated with the UN.

yes he had 4 options. One was the WIPO/UN options. Another was NAF, not UN option.

 

[PatriotOne]

shameful, the part about the UN is a LIE (or ignorance, take your pick).

Are you talking about this part? Because that makes sense to me. How would our courts have jurisdiction in Austrailia?

Because the RP.com guys registered Ron's name in Australia, the international arbitration option must be used.

 

[V3n]

ICANN Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy: http://www.icann.org/en/help/dndr/udrp/policy

It's pretty easy to read and pretty straightforward.

If the ronpaul.com entered into this agreement voluntarily and willfully, and they have no demonstrable relation to Ron Paul other than using his name for commercial gain; they're lucky he was nice enough to leave it alone until now.

I don't even feel this is "un-libertarian" - the contract was voluntary; they signed it; he's negotiating with the people they made their contract with. Maybe they should have read what they were signing closer.

 

[newbitech]

Are you talking about this part? Because that makes sense to me. How would our courts have juridiction in Austrailia?

Because the RP.com guys registered Ron's name in Australia, the international arbitration option must be used.

well again, drawing on my experience with US Federal Trademark law (and google oc.) When you register a federal trademark in the US, via treaty it is added to the global register, which AU is a party to.

But, this isn't a court case, yet (probably will be). Ron didn't have to have anything at all to do with the UN. International, yes, UN, no.

 

[cajuncocoa]

Source? I really doubt that the website operated at a loss. I have asked the owner a couple times now how much he was making off of ad revenue and merchandise. He has not responded either way. Should he simply state that ronpaul.com operated at a loss without providing specifics and evidence I will have lost more respect for him and his site. (I am 99.99% certain that the site would generate a hell of a lot more than he possibly spent on the upkeep etc) The more I read about it, the more I am on Ron Paul's side of the argument.

Same here. I'm not sure what would motivate them to operate the site at a loss if they weren't even donating to the campaign. Makes no sense to me.

 

[newbitech]

ICANN Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy: http://www.icann.org/en/help/dndr/udrp/policy

It's pretty easy to read and pretty straightforward.

If the ronpaul.com entered into this agreement voluntarily and willfully, and they have no demonstrable relation to Ron Paul other than using his name for commercial gain; they're lucky he was nice enough to leave it alone until now.

I don't even feel this is "un-libertarian" - the contract was voluntary; they signed it; he's negotiating with the people they made their contract with. Maybe they should have read what they were signing closer.

that is not even the argument.

 

[ninepointfive]

Same here. I'm not sure what would motivate them to operate the site at a loss if they weren't even donating to the campaign. Makes no sense to me.

I'd wager that not donating to the campaign and running the site made more of a positive difference than if they donated.

 

[kcchiefs6465]

I'd wager that not donating to the campaign and running the site made more of a positive difference than if they donated.

Call me crazy, but some of the money made off of 'Ron Paul' tshirts, hats etc. and ad revenue made from "RonPaul.com" should have gone to the campaign. I am simply stating my opinion. (Not that he should have been forced to donate or anything like that)