I don't even need the argument. People already realize that linking to something without specifying that it's the person's home page, for example, when they link to a wikipedia page or a site that prominently displays "fan site", doesn't imply that the link is to the person's home page.
Ron Paul tweets on RonPaul.com Issue - and discussion
- Thread starter green73
- Start date
I don't even need the argument. People already realize that linking to something without specifying that it's the person's home page, for example, when they link to a wikipedia page or a site that prominently displays "fan site", doesn't imply that the link is to the person's home page.
sailingaway
Member
- Joined
- Mar 7, 2010
- Messages
- 72,103
I meant December 2010. I think linking to ronpaul.com in 2010 was the best site about Ron Paul to link to, at least better than TST or C4L. I don't think you should get mad because NPR did not link to those sites. TST had a lot less info about Ron Paul than ronpaul.com.
newbitech
Member
- Joined
- Nov 30, 2007
- Messages
- 8,847
perhaps not but you did jump in to the middle of my commentary and quoted me. Therefor I provided you context for my response.
If the choice didn't matter, then why did Ron Paul via Lew Rockwell defend the charge by saying they had no choice? As if they knew they had choices they would not have picked the UN? This is either ignorance on the part of Ron Paul's advisers or just a lie to try and cover up that choice out of shame. Take your pick.
Fact is, a whole bunch of news articles came out about it when the guy being accused of squatting went public. The articles made Ron Paul look like an absolute hypocrite with their wording and everyone started accusing ronpaul.com of being liars and of slander.
Well, fact is they were wrong. Is Ron Paul a hypocrite? Well, if going to the UN was a choice, I think so. You can't really base your legacy and fame on your principled stand against organizations like the UN and then turn around and claim to defend your legacy and fame by appealing to that organization to protect your rights, IF you want to have me as a supporter.
So it matters to me. Maybe you are cool with that, but I'm not. Right now I am blaming it on the ignorance of Ron Paul's inner circle and bad advice from them. This has been a problem for a while and I don't suspect it will go away as long as Ron Paul is alive.
But you know someone is going to pick up that torch, could be Rand, could be someone else, but whoever does, I want to make sure those ghosts in the shadow that have haunted Ron Paul don't haunt whoever takes up that torch.
sailingaway
Member
- Joined
- Mar 7, 2010
- Messages
- 72,103
angelatc
Member
- Joined
- May 15, 2007
- Messages
- 50,703
They tried to buy it from the other Ron Paul, too. They managed to raise millions and millions of dollars on RonPaul2008.com. I really think that proving damages here is going to be a losing battle.
Also, I think it's relevant to point out that the article they quoted was indeed on the front page of RonPaul.com that day, so it was perfectly acceptable to use it as a source. It might not be fair, but it happens all the time in web linking.
I can't find any evidence that it was or wasn't on the C4L site that day. RonPaul.org was essentially abandoned by that time - the C4L banner at the top said the revolution was continuing at CampaignForLiberty.com .
LibertyPAC also had nothing about the Wikileaks debacle.
Last edited:
sailingaway
Member
- Joined
- Mar 7, 2010
- Messages
- 72,103
did you quote the wrong post?
If you are talking about the NPR site a, a bunch of media specifically said it was his site. This one I personally feel sure thought it was, because it happened relatively commonly, and I think from context they thought they were linking to his site.
I believe there are (at least) two entirely seperate questions that should not get mixed up.
One is: Was it wrong, or against Ron's principles, to file a complaint?
The answer to this seems to be, "No!" The current "owners" of the domain don't really own it in a meaningful sense. ICANN just made sure that everyone who types "ronpaul.com" into their browser gets to their site. For this service they have to pay a fee to ICANN (?) and agreed to their rules, and arbitration method. ICANN also doesn't force their way of name resolution on anybody. All the players simply agree to go with their standards, because having several different servers being linked to by one domain name (based on your internet provider/hardware/OS) would be silly. Which means if the arbitrator decides for Ron and ICANN redirects ronpaul.com to his server, no one's property would be violated.
That doesn't mean that it's necessarily the wisest way to go, because of public perception etc. But it's not against free market principles and not comparable with eminent domain. Unless you believe that the government ultimately owns all land and only allows you to use it under the conditions it specifies, like ICANN does with domains. Domains are different from land. They are not property. You can't force others to redirect to your homepage just because you claim to own the domain name. All you can do is to enforce what ICANN contractually agreed to do, unless you didn't break their rules, which is to be determined. You can legitimately own land, though, as your private property.
The second quesiton is: Will Ron win? To that I don't know the answer. I also don't believe that it's really all that important. That whole issue seems to be overblown. I just hope they settle this whole issue without any damage to his "brand".
One is: Was it wrong, or against Ron's principles, to file a complaint?
The answer to this seems to be, "No!" The current "owners" of the domain don't really own it in a meaningful sense. ICANN just made sure that everyone who types "ronpaul.com" into their browser gets to their site. For this service they have to pay a fee to ICANN (?) and agreed to their rules, and arbitration method. ICANN also doesn't force their way of name resolution on anybody. All the players simply agree to go with their standards, because having several different servers being linked to by one domain name (based on your internet provider/hardware/OS) would be silly. Which means if the arbitrator decides for Ron and ICANN redirects ronpaul.com to his server, no one's property would be violated.
That doesn't mean that it's necessarily the wisest way to go, because of public perception etc. But it's not against free market principles and not comparable with eminent domain. Unless you believe that the government ultimately owns all land and only allows you to use it under the conditions it specifies, like ICANN does with domains. Domains are different from land. They are not property. You can't force others to redirect to your homepage just because you claim to own the domain name. All you can do is to enforce what ICANN contractually agreed to do, unless you didn't break their rules, which is to be determined. You can legitimately own land, though, as your private property.
The second quesiton is: Will Ron win? To that I don't know the answer. I also don't believe that it's really all that important. That whole issue seems to be overblown. I just hope they settle this whole issue without any damage to his "brand".
angelatc
Member
- Joined
- May 15, 2007
- Messages
- 50,703
I don't enough about domain registrations to make sense of it. If I understand the explanation correctly, and it turns out that they thought the registrar was the third party when they made that assertion, then I think the bad faith claim disappears when the guy who runs the site points out that is yet more evidence of their incompetence. After all, Ron has always said the message was more important than the man, and since the campaign can't seem to get their messages out on their own sites, (See the Wikileaks article mentioned above) it seems believable that he felt it was important for him to do it.
But if RonPaul Inc are correct, and it's some "Lease This Domain" deal, then I think they'll lose the domain.
Last edited:
angelatc
Member
- Joined
- May 15, 2007
- Messages
- 50,703
You gave a specific example of the NPR site. I looked at that example, pointed out that the article that NPR was discussing wasn't posted on any of Ron's official sites, and concluded it made sense for NPR to link to the article they were quoting instead of to the candidate.
I know you say there were lots of other times, and I might agree with you if I had seen it. But right now all I've seen is the NPR cite, and it makes sense that they would link to the text.
FindLiberty
Member
- Joined
- Aug 7, 2007
- Messages
- 5,439
RandPaul.com, RandPaul.org, RandPaul.gov need to be reserved ASAP for our next POTUS.
newbitech
Member
- Joined
- Nov 30, 2007
- Messages
- 8,847
another source for same info.
http://www.opensiteexplorer.org/links.html?group=0&no_redirect=1&page=1&site=www.ronpaul.com/
you know I am not too worried about giving out trade secrets like this cause i love competition!
MisfitToy
Member
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2012
- Messages
- 106
I don't understand this whole hoopla about the UN. He's using an ICANN process. WIPO is following ICANNs rules. This isn't an Agenda 21 process.
If he walked into a bank to get change would you jump on him and shout "Hey, you're supporting the federal reserve system! You're a liar!"? Would you jump on the rest of us here that use the bank too?
If he walked into a bank to get change would you jump on him and shout "Hey, you're supporting the federal reserve system! You're a liar!"? Would you jump on the rest of us here that use the bank too?
kcchiefs6465
Member
- Joined
- Jan 25, 2012
- Messages
- 15,193
People quit buying merchandise from them I'd assume. It's possible their lawyer told them to take it down as well. Seeing how the owners/operators/affiliates stay in the shadows, of sorts, you can't say for sure. I'd bet on them losing revenue when people found out Ron Paul wasn't pleased with them so they took them down.
I believe they still have some bullshit about Lew Rockwell up? I really hardly frequent that site.
ETA: Congrats on being the first person in the history of RPF to link ronpaul.com. (At least from what I can tell) They should give you a free tshirt for that one.
Last edited:
sailingaway
Member
- Joined
- Mar 7, 2010
- Messages
- 72,103
yep. In fact that site is very responsive to our discussion. if they hadn't come out all barrels spinning against Ron in the media, I'd want him to hire them. Responsiveness to grass roots like that wouldn't be a bad thing at all....
green73
Member
- Joined
- Dec 3, 2007
- Messages
- 13,670
How Valuable is RonPaul.com?
36% of visitors make $150K or more?
http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2013/02/how-valuable-is-ronpaulcom.html
36% of visitors make $150K or more?
The web tracking service Quantcast says the site gets traffic from very high income visitors.
Is this why the current owners are fighting so hard to keep the web site?
Alexa ranks ronpaul.com as the 21,378th most popular web address in the US.
Here's a list of the top search inquiries driving traffic to ronpaul.com, according to Alexa.
Query Percent of Search Traffic
1 ron paul 39.37%
2 ron paul revolution 2.44%
3 ron paul 2012 1.97%
4 ronpaul 1.09%
5 ron paul for president 0.97%
6 who is ron paul 0.91%
7 .com 0.83%
8 ron pual 0.75%
9 ron paul polls 0.58%
10 ron paul end the fed 0.47%
Keep in mind, not one of these searches is for "Ron Paul" mugs, "Ron Paul" bumper stickers or "Ron Paul" T-shirts, which is what the current owners sell on the frontpage of ronpaul.com. These people are searching for information about Ron Paul. They are getting misdirected.
So what is RonPaul.com worth to the current owners?
According to Quantcast, web sites ranked at the same level as RonPaul.com are getting traffic of around 600 visitors per day. Having some familiarity with Quantcast numbers for unquantified sites, I believe this number is very conservative and the number of daily visitors is probably closer to 1,000. If we assume that RonPaul.com is converting 0.60% into buyers of Ron Paul memorabilia and clothing, a conservative estimate, then the web site is making 6 sales a day.
The site owners are selling Ron Paul T-shirts for $33.40. They sell through Zazzle, which lists the T-shirts they are selling at $20.95. That's a markup of $12.45 per T-shirt. They also sell sweatshirts, bumper stickers and mugs. The average sales ticket is likely at least $65.00, with a profit per sale of around $25.00. With 6 sales a day that's $150.00 a day or $4,500 a month and that's during this quiet period, when there is no presidential campaign. Imagine what they were making during the presidential campaign, when millions goggled Dr Paul's name. When Dr. Paul's new "Big project" is launched, it is sure to result in many more people searching for Ron Paul and ending up at the T-shirt hustlers currently running ronpaul.com. Then the cash register will really start to ring, again, for them. That's why the current owners are not going to give up ronpaul.com without a fight. They know another huge new series of pay days is coming for them, when Dr. Paul launches his new projec, if they can hold on to the site. They want to head to the bank everyday on the back of Dr. Paul's new efforts.
http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2013/02/how-valuable-is-ronpaulcom.html
