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

[sailingaway]

Not sure, but it doesn't seem to be an issue in the three points needed to be proven. There really isn't a case available that is exactly similar to this (i.e. selling merchandise off site from a political figure)

Not just merchandise but ads too if he kept scooping up Ron Paul names and pointing them to the site to make the ad revenue very big. I don't know about that, but the element of bad faith does seem to look at the extent you were making money off someone else's persona.

Obviously, the arbitrators will be the ones who decide who wins or loses, if it gets that far. The parties should work it out instead, imho, however.

I don't know why the site owners just changed their whosis listing or whether that is related to this, either.

 

[CaptLouAlbano]

And the site isn't geared strictly to selling merchandise. It's more like a blog that has banner ads.

I have yet to see any banner ads on any other sites saying anything like, "Visit RonPaul.com and buy cool Ron Paul shirts!!!"

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.

 

[angelatc]

They had it on the market. They were selling it to someone, and it was Ron's name. He didn't want the rest, just that. Yeah, I'm surprised he went this way, but he first tried to buy it despite the claim he had, in good faith and it looks like they were gouging him, not in good faith. I don't see anything but Ron's own popularity supporting those numbers, and I do believe in IP. But I still wish this hadn't happened this way.

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!"

 

[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.

They have the right to request an extension to prepare their reply. I hope to God they have a lawyer, although it's a shame they need one. But Paul has 4, I think I read?

And I hope they're reading these replies. I think we've made some pretty valid points testing our position.

 

[CPUd]

And the site isn't geared strictly to selling merchandise. It's more like a blog that has banner ads.

I have yet to see any banner ads on any other sites saying anything like, "Visit RonPaul.com and buy cool Ron Paul shirts!!!"

it's a wordpress blog. And because it's SEO'd so well, they bring in enough organic search that they don't have to run ads.

You're hilarious. I'm a self taught web master and could easily make a better website. When I took computer science classes the internet was not even taught. Anybody that knows anything about websites knows they did nothing special at all to set up their website.

Yes, they have a famous 5-minute install:
http://codex.wordpress.org/Installing_WordPress#Easy_5_Minute_WordPress_Installation_on_Windows

 

[CaptLouAlbano]

Not just merchandise but ads too if he kept scooping up Ron Paul names and pointing them to the site to make the ad revenue very big. I don't know about that, but the element of bad faith does seem to look at the extent you were making money off someone else's persona.

Obviously, the arbitrators will be the ones who decide who wins or loses, if it gets that far. The parties should work it out instead, imho, however.

I don't know why the site owners just changed their whosis listing or whether that is related to this, either.

This is a unique case for sure, which makes it so interesting. I looked at a lot of the cybersquatting cases and they typically are pretty cut and dry. Someone buys a name, puts up a generic landing page and tries to sell the domain for big bucks. I have not found one where someone created a site (for 5 years mind you) that benefited the person, and that person was a political figure. The closest is the Lady Gaga case, which ruled in favor of the domain owner, by failing to prove point 2.

 

[CaptLouAlbano]

it's a wordpress blog. And because it's SEO'd so well, they bring in enough organic search that they don't have to run ads.

Someone should seriously hire this guy to run a blog for them. The guy knows his stuff.

 

[angelatc]

Not just merchandise but ads too if he kept scooping up Ron Paul names and pointing them to the site to make the ad revenue very big. I don't know about that, but the element of bad faith does seem to look at the extent you were making money off someone else's persona..

Again, for 5 years, people have run amok making money off the Ron Paul name. There were several shirt sellers and bumper sticker publishers frequenting these very forums. At least 2 that I can recall off the top of my head bought banner ads here to peddle their wares. The consensus, I thought, was that capitalism was a good thing.

Now we're changing our opinion to "Only Ron Paul should sell Ron Paul shirts?"

Or "It's now ok to peddle bootleg merchandise on RonPaulForums.com, but not RonPaul.com, because Ron Paul has finally decided that he wants the latter one."

 

[sailingaway]

I am a "webmaster" too, and could have made a better UI for the site as well, but that is not the point here. The point is that they invested their money in the domain name, their time, regardless of how little or much it was maintaining it, and they have every right in the world to sell it at a price of their choosing.

Except the rules between the domain owner and the site registrant prohibited certain use and said under those circumstances the person whose name it was could get it. Despite that Ron tried to get it at what he had estimated to be a fair price. I don't think he isn't a part of the issue here, but it was HIS NAME and the rules the site registrant agreed to to run the site said what he could do and couldn't do in that case. I don't even know who will win, but I don't think this is just about Ron. If the site owner who had it on the market anyhow was negotiating in good faith, it seems to me they might have reached a deal. Given how he spun facts and how his story was picked up by the media, he doesn't really seem to be in good faith, to me. I don't know how to value a domain name, so I am assuming Ron's estimate is roughly correct. If it isn't, I think it should be valued. I would like to see the site registrant compensated, however if he is pricing it based on Ron's popularity, not his own site, which I expect he can keep under another name and clearly stated to be his, then that is precisely what the rules of the domain exist to prevent, as I see it.

Ron could have walked away, but it might be tough not to be able to use your own name while others are really making money off what YOU do. Some here simply don't believe intellectual property is real property, but I do. It is as much the fruit of your labor as a pot or a car you make.

I guess Ron maybe isn't a saint, but I don't see all the issue being on his side. And we don't know what happened in negotiations. It WAS listed for sale on whosis.

However, I do hope they work it out and settle.

 

[CaptLouAlbano]

Again, for 5 years, people have run amok making money off the Ron Paul name. There were several shirt sellers and bumper sticker publishers frequenting these very forums. At least 2 that I can recall off the top of my head bought banner ads here to peddle their wares. The consensus, I thought, was that capitalism was a good thing.

Now we're changing our opinion to "Only Ron Paul should sell Ron Paul shirts?"

Or "It's now ok to peddle bootleg merchandise on RonPaulForums.com, but not RonPaul.com, because Ron Paul has finally decided that he wants the latter one."

Didn't one of us find in our research that political figures do not enjoy the same protections on merchandise that other celebs do? That's why you can find tons of Obama stuff for sale, but any Justin Bieber merchandise is all licensed?

 

[sailingaway]

This is a unique case for sure, which makes it so interesting. I looked at a lot of the cybersquatting cases and they typically are pretty cut and dry. Someone buys a name, puts up a generic landing page and tries to sell the domain for big bucks. I have not found one where someone created a site (for 5 years mind you) that benefited the person, and that person was a political figure. The closest is the Lady Gaga case, which ruled in favor of the domain owner, by failing to prove point 2.

But that one doesn't have the sale element where it was for sale and the domain registrant was asking the person whose name and persona he was using for an exorbitant price, so I don't really think that is the closest, at all.

 

[sailingaway]

Didn't one of us find in our research that political figures do not enjoy the same protections on merchandise that other celebs do? That's why you can find tons of Obama stuff for sale, but any Justin Bieber merchandise is all licensed?

I doubt it would be that cut and dry.

 

[CaptLouAlbano]

But that one doesn't have the sale element where it was for sale and the domain registrant was asking the person whose name and persona he was using for an exorbitant price, so I don't really think that is the closest, at all.

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.

 

[sailingaway]

Again, for 5 years, people have run amok making money off the Ron Paul name. There were several shirt sellers and bumper sticker publishers frequenting these very forums. At least 2 that I can recall off the top of my head bought banner ads here to peddle their wares. The consensus, I thought, was that capitalism was a good thing.

Now we're changing our opinion to "Only Ron Paul should sell Ron Paul shirts?"

Or "It's now ok to peddle bootleg merchandise on RonPaulForums.com, but not RonPaul.com, because Ron Paul has finally decided that he wants the latter one."

I never had an opinion on it. Our opinion could be 'gee it was nice while we were able to do it'. Or there may be other arguments about it, if they are representations in the public domain. Maybe it is like photographs, or, during a campaign, political speech. I don't actually know. However, that isn't what this claim is about. Ron has ONLY gone to the person who has the domain which is his name so he himself can do business under his own name on the internet.

 

[GunnyFreedom]

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!"

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.

 

[sailingaway]

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 haven't really looked. But I don't know you can prove 'benefit' with all the other sites out there, although it could have hurt if it were an attack site and the fact that it wasn't is why I want the guy compensated. Depending on how much money he made off it, the 'benefit' to Ron could be way dwarfed. All cases are different, and the arbitrators are going to have to be the ones to decide. I would have added some facts to the complaint that arent' in there, myself, though.

 

[CaptLouAlbano]

I doubt it would be that cut and dry.

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.

 

[GunnyFreedom]

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

 

[sailingaway]

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.

It could only have been mediated if the seller would agree to that. I thought I read that he took the offer off the table, and I don't know if that plus the site remaining for sale to all else precipitated the claim or if taking the offer back was after the claim. If it was before, though, there is no reason to believe he would submit to mediation.

Also, I haven't read what the changes to the seller's whosis he just made right when Ron filed the claim mean, if anything. If he had threatened to sell to someone else, after not, in Ron's people's opinion, negotiating in good faith, the claim might have in part been to keep it from getting further away, potentially to an unfriendly party, as a timing matter, or to put the potential buyer on notice so they couldn't claim they took without notice there was a dispute.

Obviously, I don't know what happened, but given all the ways to poison the well in negotiations, I can see ways Ron might have been provoked into this. NOW however, the parties can STILL mediate it or negotiate and settle it, and I hope they do.

 

[sailingaway]

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!"

I think there are fair prices and if you expect the other side to throw away the intellectual property and contract claims THEY have to 'be fair' you probably would do best to act in good faith yourself.