VIDEO: Ron Paul files suit for RonPaul.com (Fox News)

[RickyJ]

and I think "I want a mansion and a Ferrari off of the value you invested into your own name" while allowed in a free market, to be personally obscene. I think the thing could have been mediated, and Paul let the offense get the better of him, but I would have been offended too. "I invest 30 years of work into the value of something and now you want a damn Ferrari off of my work." There are two sides of right and wrong on each.

Abolishing IP and treating data as real estate and thus evaluating a name or reputation is unnatural. Look how far that man in LA went for his name. We have to stop pretending it doesn't matter. You have a free market, and in it you have the freedom to be a monster. Don't be surprised when the guy you picked sidesteps you and delivers a kill shot.

Dr Paul got offended and got carried away. Remember he is from a different era. Not long before him men fought duels with guns over lesser offenses to one's name. It wasn't a fraction as serious as Dr. Paul made it, but it sure is serious now.

Whoever reads this in a post-partum or whatever, listen and take this to heart, this could have been mediated. If you are reading this while the action is still live, I can and will mediate it. We can solve this for both sides in a way that heals everybody, please.

He's only 77, not 177.

 

[RickyJ]

Also, "once bitten twice shy" look how much trouble he got for a lack of control over a newsletter under his name.

That first came out in late 2007, yet he does nothing to obtain the ronpaul.com domain name when he was told it was available in early 2008. The people running Ron Paul's campaign were either utterly incompetent and/or sabotaging it on purpose. One has to wonder how much Ron knew about what was going on, because he didn't appear to really want to be president in 2008 or 2012.

 

[fr33]

Price gouging is a liberal term that means "I'm crying because they're charging more than I want to pay, and it isn't fair!"

It's also a term one uses when the gouger claims to be a supporter while proving they aren't one.

Instead of helping Ron, they have gouged and slandered him.

 

[PatriotOne]

Let's say for argument's sake that the site owner was generating $100K per year from the site between ad sales and merchandise sales from his zazzle store. How much do you think that he should sell the domain for?

He's updated his blog in response to comments on his article.

■The idea that we got rich off this site is flattering but completely untrue. Many people are trying to achieve the libertarian dream Ron Paul was fortunate enough to realize for himself: making a living while promoting the cause of liberty. Yet almost nobody achieves it. We never did. (Details will be provided in our defense.)

This site has been a financial and physical drain for many years but we kept working on it out of our loyalty to, and enthusiasm about, Ron Paul and the message of liberty.

How much should one be expected to pay for a domain that's been a financial drain?

 

[loveshiscountry]

He's updated his blog in response to comments on his article.

■The idea that we got rich off this site is flattering but completely untrue. Many people are trying to achieve the libertarian dream Ron Paul was fortunate enough to realize for himself: making a living while promoting the cause of liberty. Yet almost nobody achieves it. We never did. (Details will be provided in our defense.)

This site has been a financial and physical drain for many years but we kept working on it out of our loyalty to, and enthusiasm about, Ron Paul and the message of liberty.

How much should one be expected to pay for a domain that's been a financial drain?

One Ryan Leaf rookie card.

 

[newbitech]

I don't know. There is a ton of merchandise for a variety of politicians on sale at amazon (Newt, Mitt, Ron, Obama, Huckabee, etc). I have never heard of a political figure trying to stop the sale of merchandise, but I have seen it often with other celebs. I mentioned earlier that I have an acquaintance who is the son of a famous decesaed singer, and they have an attorney who part of their job is to be on the look out for stuff.

http://corporate.findlaw.com/litiga...blehead-case-first-amendment-or-right-of.html

Schwarzenegger Bobblehead Case: First Amendment or Right of Publicity. FindLaw Interview with William T. Gallagher of Townsend and Townsend and Crew LLP


they might want to look into hiring these guys for their defense.

 

[CaptLouAlbano]

He's updated his blog in response to comments on his article.

■The idea that we got rich off this site is flattering but completely untrue. Many people are trying to achieve the libertarian dream Ron Paul was fortunate enough to realize for himself: making a living while promoting the cause of liberty. Yet almost nobody achieves it. We never did. (Details will be provided in our defense.)

This site has been a financial and physical drain for many years but we kept working on it out of our loyalty to, and enthusiasm about, Ron Paul and the message of liberty.

How much should one be expected to pay for a domain that's been a financial drain?

Interesting. I would have thought that due to a lot of factors that he would have been able to monetize his traffic better. I stand corrected in my assumption that the guy was making money. Personally, if something was a financial drain, I would dump it very early on. In all my years of business, I never kept a dog, regardless of any emotional attachment I had to it. If a business was losing money, you either sell it right away, pay someone to make it profitable or just walk away from it all.

But to answer the question you posed - unless the owner is somehow legally required to sell the domain, then you pay whatever he is asking and willing to settle on. If anything, this statement he made shows me that he would have been very willing to negotiate down from the 250K mark, if the right calls were made by the right people.

Take the whole trademark, "his name" issue out of this - which lead to the arbitration, and say for example his site was abcdefg.com. The guy has a big site on it, but it is a financial drain. You for whatever reason decide you want to buy abcdefg.com and developa completely different site. You contact the owner, he says 250K. You can either buy the domain, negotiate or walk.

Now of course in this case there was a fourth option which Ron chose, and that was to take him to arbitration. However, if Ron is not awarded the domain via arbitration, he is back to only three options.

 

[nayjevin]

Can you find one where a site was created that benefited the complainant and they ruled in favor of them? Also, something with the length of time involved and improvement of the domain (page rank, SEO, etc) I haven't found one.

I do not believe the site benefited Ron Paul, I believe it always has been a confusion and a net detriment to him. Never has this been more the case than now, they are actively slandering the man and misrepresenting him.

1. It is the number one ranked site for his name. But it is not him
2. Media confused it with Ron's official site
3. People looking to donate to Ron Paul accidentally donated to RonPaul.com instead
4. Internet traffic for people trying to find Ron Paul found RonPaul.com instead
5. People visiting the site came away thinking 'Ron Paul just wants my email address like any other politician.'
6. The site content was not original, it was coattail traffic (not always bad)
7. The site owners have always had the power to slander Ron Paul by owning his name domain. They have clearly used that power.
8. Every dollar and click and view the site gained would have occurred elsewhere had the site not existed. Searches for Ron Paul would have found Ron Paul instead of the charlatans.

 

[angelatc]

It's also a term one uses when the gouger claims to be a supporter while proving they aren't one.

Instead of helping Ron, they have gouged and slandered him.

There is absolutely no evidence that they aren't fans. That accusation never came up until Paul started the whisper campaign the preceeded the filing.

 

[angelatc]

and I think "I want a mansion and a Ferrari off of the value you invested into your own name" while allowed in a free market, to be personally obscene.

Exactly. The price of Ferraris are obscene. But when people start insisting that they make far too much profit off of each one they sell, and demanding third party intervention to set prices they deem fair.....they cry "price gouging!"

You'd think, after umpteen years in Congress, Ron would have picked up the ability to negotiate.

 

[angelatc]

Interesting. I would have thought that due to a lot of factors that he would have been able to monetize his traffic better. I stand corrected in my assumption that the guy was making money. Personally, if something was a financial drain, I would dump it very early on. In all my years of business, I never kept a dog, regardless of any emotional attachment I had to it. If a business was losing money, you either sell it right away, pay someone to make it profitable or just walk away from it all.

It's a fan site. I know you know that your employees work for reasons other than money. You're driven by cash, but fans are driven by a passion, and I'm sure conquering the Google rankings is a feat that is admired in other circles.

 

[angelatc]

http://corporate.findlaw.com/litiga...blehead-case-first-amendment-or-right-of.html

Schwarzenegger Bobblehead Case: First Amendment or Right of Publicity. FindLaw Interview with William T. Gallagher of Townsend and Townsend and Crew LLP


they might want to look into hiring these guys for their defense.

One of the biggest complaints with arbitration, and ICANN in particular, is that they don't give any weight to Constitutional Law, notably the First Amendment.

 

[CaptLouAlbano]

I do not believe the site benefited Ron Paul, I believe it always has been a confusion and a net detriment to him. Never has this been more the case than now, they are actively slandering the man and misrepresenting him.

1. It is the number one ranked site for his name. But it is not him
2. Media confused it with Ron's official site
3. People looking to donate to Ron Paul accidentally donated to RonPaul.com instead
4. Internet traffic for people trying to find Ron Paul found RonPaul.com instead
5. People visiting the site came away thinking 'Ron Paul just wants my email address like any other politician.'
6. The site content was not original, it was coattail traffic (not always bad)
7. The site owners have always had the power to slander Ron Paul by owning his name domain. They have clearly used that power.
8. Every dollar and click and view the site gained would have occurred elsewhere had the site not existed. Searches for Ron Paul would have found Ron Paul instead of the charlatans.

Remember though that three points need to be proven in order for the arbitrators to award the domain to Ron Paul. Your list probably satisfies point one. I think the issue where Ron is going to have problems is on point 2 - that the present owner has no right or claim on the domain name. And then point three being that they acted in "bad faith" typically is reserved for sites that do nothing but put up a fake portal page, or something similar. Developing a site around the person, demonstrates good faith (at least how I see some of the legal definitions). And the quality of that site (like you point out in #6 on your list) really has little, if any, bearing.

 

[CaptLouAlbano]

It's a fan site. I know you know that your employees work for reasons other than money. You're driven by cash, but fans are driven by a passion, and I'm sure conquering the Google rankings is a feat that is admired in other circles.

Yeah I am all about the bottom line, I won't lie at all. If you ever watch Shark Tank, I am like Kevin O'Leary.

 

[newbitech]

I do not believe the site benefited Ron Paul, I believe it always has been a confusion and a net detriment to him. Never has this been more the case than now, they are actively slandering the man and misrepresenting him.

1. It is the number one ranked site for his name. But it is not him
2. Media confused it with Ron's official site
3. People looking to donate to Ron Paul accidentally donated to RonPaul.com instead
4. Internet traffic for people trying to find Ron Paul found RonPaul.com instead
5. People visiting the site came away thinking 'Ron Paul just wants my email address like any other politician.'
6. The site content was not original, it was coattail traffic (not always bad)
7. The site owners have always had the power to slander Ron Paul by owning his name domain. They have clearly used that power.
8. Every dollar and click and view the site gained would have occurred elsewhere had the site not existed. Searches for Ron Paul would have found Ron Paul instead of the charlatans.

1.) That is irrelevant. Right now the #1 thing that comes up is Campaign For Liberty. It's about domain authority, not the site name.
2.) Media recently confused a near miss asteroid with global warming. This is not an argument.
3.) And what was the response of the site owner if that claim is true? Evidence?
4.) They also found wikipedia/Ron_Paul, campaignforliberty, dailypaul, ronpaulforums, news articles, etc etc etc... are you claiming the site was not about Ron Paul?
5.) speculation, opinion. People also came away with information they were looking for.
6.) sweeping generalization. Lots of original content, like the discussion about the topics. A lot like this forum. Are you accusing them now of copyright violation?
7.) Everyone has always had that power at any time. Slander is not telling the truth about someone.
8.) Patently false. Strawman. You cannot back this up with evidence, at all.

Nothing personal but these don't sound like arguments or present new facts to the discussion. I think you want RonPaul to have the site at any cost (except the money cost). It is absolutely 100% necessary to make these folks look bad to get the desired result (RonPaul getting the site for free). So, that is why you are speaking out this way, sort of adding to the formal complaint.

I don't think its right to treat someone like that.

 

[angelatc]

Exactly. Out of the 40,000 pages only a small number are dedicated to the store, which link off site. Should be interesting to see if the ruling addresses that.

This is off-topic, but I just noticed that the Ron Pal merchandise is gone from the C4L, too.

 

[angelatc]

Yeah I am all about the bottom line, I won't lie at all. If you ever watch Shark Tank, I am like Kevin O'Leary.

LOL - I'll never believe you're a total pr*ck like he is.

 

[newbitech]

One of the biggest complaints with arbitration, and ICANN in particular, is that they don't give any weight to Constitutional Law, notably the First Amendment.

well first off, ICANN is not in control of arbitration other than to require it in their dispute process with approve agencies. One of the approve agencies, NAL(an alternative that Ron Paul could have used) has a specific complaint type that does take into consideration US Federal and State laws.

So there is/was and alternative if Ron Paul was interested in pursuing a complaint that takes into account his own personal and publicly made values. He probably just didn't know about it because his advisers are either incompetent, OR wanted to avoid a 1st Amendment defense.

 

[angelatc]

Developing a site around the person, demonstrates good faith (at least how I see some of the legal definitions). And the quality of that site (like you point out in #6 on your list) really has little, if any, bearing.

I don't think a person would necessarily need to demonstrate bad faith. The Glenn Beck case illustrates that. The domain owner freely admitted that he was perfectly aware that Glenn Beck did not actually rape and murder anybody, and yet he was allowed to keep the site.

 

[sailingaway]

Remember though that three points need to be proven in order for the arbitrators to award the domain to Ron Paul. Your list probably satisfies point one. I think the issue where Ron is going to have problems is on point 2 - that the present owner has no right or claim on the domain name. And then point three being that they acted in "bad faith" typically is reserved for sites that do nothing but put up a fake portal page, or something similar. Developing a site around the person, demonstrates good faith (at least how I see some of the legal definitions). And the quality of that site (like you point out in #6 on your list) really has little, if any, bearing.

This is your view but I have set out ways these elements can be made. I think your statement that bad faith is 'typically' for fake portal sites ignores the ones I've already mentioned to you where the site is being sold at a hold up price. In this case the site was on the market, the guy wasn't keeping it himself, and he asked what Paul apparently thinks based on an estimate he got, is a hold up price. He may have the value wrong, in which case the site owner should suggest a fair way to value it that Ron can have confidence in, imho. I can easily believe Ron himself has no idea how to value it. but to the extent the price was blown out of proportion only because of his own fame or because they 'had him over a barrel for his own name' that seems to be exactly the reason the rules of the domain the site owner agreed to exist to protect the guy with the name.

I want them to settle though, so I hope the site owner is making a new offer, stating WHY he thinks his site is valuable and maybe offering to plug all the 301s or whatever in transfer that I suspect Ron has no idea about either, which probably are what give it the page ranking it has. Or some other offer the site owner thinks would be good.