Ron Paul has NOT gone to the UN to strong-arm RonPaul.com

http://www.facebook.com/ginrikuzuma Morino Ginrikuzuma

They are just defaming his name. I just went to the owner’s FB page and he is just talking trash about RP. I’m glad I never liked the page and I’m glad people are “un-liking” the page

http://www.facebook.com/electrictroy Troy Heagy

ronpaul.com appears to be censoring posts now. They erased three of mine supporting Ron Paul. That’s all I need to know about their honesty (or lack thereof). They are trying to control the discussion to support their “he sucks” narrative. Bunch of Aussie foreigners is what they are.
http://www.facebook.com/electrictroy Troy Heagy

FROM LEW ROCKWELL (edited): “Ron is not using the State, but is seeking to have ICANN enforce its own rules against cybersquatting….. Because the RP.com guys registered Ron’s name in Australia, the international arbitration option must be used.

“–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.”

“–Is Ron “attacking his own supporters” by his action? No. 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.”
.

Ed

Spot on.

http://www.facebook.com/Jason311 Jason Gambit Foreman

I never believed RonPaul.com’s claim. I unsubscribed from both of their websites yesterday.

http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=521338043 Tc Boston

Arbitration or not – its underhanded that RP is trying to wrest the domain from those holding it now – they bought it fair and square and have developed it on their own – there is a financial burden they would have to deal with if they were forced to relocate as well as the fact that what people have dealt with at the domain from the time that they bought it at auction has everything to do with the brand that they’ve developed. 250k IS a fair price and i think their other offer for the .org domain was rather selfless. i think israel anderson would not be so protective of RP’s actions if it were he who was forced to sell a domain that he cultivated…. this flies in the face of libertarian principles of keeping the fruits of one’s labor.. or that there are too many bureaucratic laws… or free market in general – the domain isn’t bare bones and these guys at ronpaul.com are just squatting in the hopes to sell the domain – they actively developed it. defend RP if you want – i think his crap staff has more to do with this decision to go to arbitration than RP does – either way – its bad form and i’m sorely disappointed in him – and your support in this video makes me think that you’re out of line as well

http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100003526419876 KC Ted

They have already been using derogatory “sensational” article titles to attract hits and sell Ron Paul merchandise. Maybe he’s not keen on being denigrated, for selling his name printed on hoodies, cell phone covers, t-shirts and dozens of other items?
http://twitter.com/ScottBieser Scott Bieser

Cultivate, schmultivate. The RonPaul.com people were riding a bandwagon that was created and fueled by Ron Paul’s Presidential campaigns, without actually being part of the campaigns and subject to Paul’s oversight. Now that the campaigns are over they want to cash in? Fuggedaboudit.
- conspiracygirl
  
  There is another way to look at this. Much of the success of Ron Paul’s campaign was due to the efforts of people like those at ronpaul.com who donated their time, talents, and money to spread his message. For instance, the money bomb was not Ron Paul’s brainchild. It was the idea of supporters. Ron Paul had no problem with ronpaul.com using his name and likeness because he was the ultimate beneficiary. The idea of central oversight in a libertarian campaign is kinda self-contradictory anyway.
  - http://www.facebook.com/electrictroy Troy Heagy
    
    ronpaul.com doesn’t have any original content (at least none I can see). So their investment is minimal.
    
    Plus when they move to another domain like ronpaul_fan.com, they will lose nothing. They will still have their site & be able to sell tons of overpriced goods.
  - Adam Raisch
    
    Are you saying that you would not have supported Ron Paul if their was no RonPaul.com or if Ron Paul himself owned it during his campaign?
    - Adam Raisch
      
      In addition to my question above: A man or woman should receive support on principle not on popularity. Isn’t that what his campaign was all about? If you followed him for any other reason than you did not get the picture!
http://www.facebook.com/electrictroy Troy Heagy

>>>”they bought it fair and square and have developed it on their own”

The Australian owners also signed a contract that if the domain name was a trademarked named, then they will be forced to give it up. They agreed to those terms….. they are bound by the contract (a concept even the Libertarian party supports). Them having to giveup the trademarked ronpaul.com is no different than back in the 90s when some people had to giveup mcdonalds.com, walmart.com, et cetera. It’s in the terms of service
- http://www.facebook.com/shawnkhall Shawn K. Hall
  
  Actually, it is. McDonalds and Walmart are actual trademarks. Ron Paul is not. You can check this yourself at uspto.gov
  - Guest
    
    Incorrect. A person’s name is a common-law trademark.
- Tracy N.
  
  I have no qualms about how he is going about it, but the fact that he is
  doing it in the first place is wrong. Whether the owners bought the
  site for personal gain or not, they bought it fair and square and if RP
  wants it he needs to buy it fair and square. His name isn’t trademarked,
  so he has no case. He should not be trying to take this site without
  paying for it. I love Dr. Paul but thats total bullshit.

Tyler

please substantiate the owner of robpaul.com. everywhere i check list the following owner

http://who.godaddy.com/whois.aspx?k=9fNTPv/v2UpFaHd+bR8ITCeWp01I3an5Xayr+T54RkfhUC1GdDHfuUn/FB+mPkxU&domain=ronpaul.com&prog_id=GoDaddy

Tyler

ronpaul.com*

conspiracygirl

Yeah, Israel, I get that. It was never about ICANN, at least for me (since I understood that part). For me it is about that idea that Ron Paul seems to believe he is entitled to property that someone else purchased, and should be able to take it without compensation. I’m very sorry that he let these names expire, but y’know, in the market sometimes when you snooze, you lose. It’s a hard lesson. It doesn’t mean that those who did buy the thing that you later wish you’d bought are bad guys. Ron Paul didn’t seem to think they were bad guys when all their work served to benefit his campaign.

I donated a great deal of money to the Ron Paul campaign, not without personal hardship, and expected it to be used on the campaign. Instead he had about 2 million bucks left over. I feel he should have returned that money to his donors — perhaps by returning it to those who donated the final 2 million dollars — or maybe the first 2 million — or whatever. Since he hasn’t done that, perhaps he could just chock it up to experience and negotiate with Tim to buy this domain name. Using the money that other people donated to him shouldn’t be that painful. Alternatively he could accept their offer to give him ronpaul.org. There is nothing magical about the .com TDN.

justsomeguy151

There is the matter of a an agreement that ronpaul.com AGREED TO and signed. So yr full of it.
SmartL

If these people were really “supporters” of Ron Paul, they would have sold the website to him for $1. Wouldn’t you?

Fred Autonom

Even if that mailing list was worth $250,000, Ron Paul doesn’t need it. He likely has most of those names. And I’m offended that ronpaul.com would try to sell their mailing list anyway and use that as leverage in the liberty community. Yeah, we should be ecstatic that they’re willing to make a buck off our private information.

http://www.facebook.com/jonathan.winning.9 Jonathan Winning

This most likely boils down to the fact that Ron Paul doesn’t like that someone is using his name to make a profit. Even if they ARE selling things with his name and getting his message out, they are raking in money using his name. Nobody would like that no matter who they are. I could be wrong, but I looked and didn’t see anything telling us that any amount of the money made goes to Ron Paul, his campaign, or C4L. From what I can tell it’s all pure profit (not counting overhead) to the website’s owner and to me that is a huge issue. He is probably attacking RP now because he might lose a huge revenue stream.

http://twitter.com/NetRebellion OpenRebellionUS

That is Exactly whats happening here. After being a web marketer for the last 10 years, I know for a fact that the ICANN procedure is completely normal. It IS somehow connected to the UN (because a large number of TLD’s ( domain name extensions) are actually foreign countries (.US, .TV .IN etc). This guy is freaking because hes going to have to give up his income stream, and move on.
http://twitter.com/isabellaliberty Liberty Bell

very well said Jonathan Winning,could not have said it better my self.Thank you for your comment.
conspiracygirl

When did libertarians start loathing profit…?

EaDiot

Puuuhleeez Ron Paul talks the talk he just doesn’t walk the walk! The only person who had a signed agreement and ran a site dedicated to Ron Paul and his supporters was the owners. A true libertarian would resolve this matter man to man FULL STOP. You can paint a pig any colour you want it is still a pig! If the owners were merely holding the name and ransoming it like has been done in other cases maybe and it’s only a small maybe on my part would I be in agreement with Ron Paul’s decision for following the ICANN dispute resolution process before being a true libertarian.

mlee

The ONLY thing he can do? No, he could negotiate with the owner and offer to BUY the domain at a mutually agreed price.

SmartL

Done. Price went from half a million to a quarter of a million. Ridiculous.

ThatLibertyGuy

Following pre-determined, agreed upon procedures was once considered the upright path. Now you are likely to be branded a thief(as in trying to ‘steal’ a nomination) or a bully(as in ‘strong-arming’) because you follow the rules. I am more and more convinced that our only hope in these dark days is that God is on His throne and prayer changes things.

Adam Raisch

Amen! I think because Ron Paul does not follow the status quo, people believe he is anti-law. Nothing could be further from the truth. He believes in laws driven only by absolute necessity. Those that follow after the GOD GIVEN rights of life, liberty, and PROPERTY!

ahallock

Yes, the domain owner agreed to the registration terms. But pursuing the domain name dispute process isn’t RP’s only option. He could, you know, actually have a conversation with the guy, form a relationship. Who knows, maybe they could build out the next version of the site together. Also, ICANN uses trademark ownership as one criterium for resolution, which is a Statist tool.

YouAreRight

I agree. Plus, it’s pretty clear the domain owner hasn’t even violated the ICANN registration terms. Anyone with any background in copyright law understands Ron Paul has no chance at winning, except through legal intimidation.

Ron Paul is wasting his–and our–time and energy. He needs to buy the domain or move on instead of allowing his grassroots to expend their valuable resources arguing amongst ourselves when we could and should be fighting oppressive government. Ron Paul’s post-election behavior is embarrassing to our Ron Paul Revolution.
- SmartL
  
  You are OBVIOUSLY not a Ron Paul supporter.
  - EaDiot
    
    Actually he may not be a Ron Paul supporter but he certainly sounds like a True Libertarian! And the asking price of $250k was for their mailing list and RonPaul.org their argument is that the website is established with links to and from it and in the interest of Ron Paul would kill many posts linking back to it. By allowing them to develop the site Ron Paul gave tacit agreement to the site and gave it some form of legitimacy. Personally I believe Ron Paul should be in discussions discussing the way forward with the owners for the site and driving the site’s efforts. Mano el mano.
    - rpflix
      
      Considering that Ron Paul will already have 100% of the names on that list and many more, the list has no value to Ron Paul. To someone else it might, but not to Ron Paul.
SmartL

They already tried to talk. They went from half a million to a quarter of a million. They are ONLY concerned about money. If they were truly supporters of Ron Paul, they should just give him his own name back.

Journalistic Revolution

This was my take on the issue, https://www.facebook.com/JournalisticRevolution/posts/202774356514585

http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=4905714 Brian Parsons

Think about it… one word, NEWSLETTERS. Exactly why Ron Paul would want control over his “brand”.

Stuart Herold

RonPaul.com Booted me off after 4 yrs on their FB page. Bunch of A-holes.

http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=690784465 Steve Luce

Israel, domain names are bought and sold every day with as much regularity and informality as buying or selling a motorcycle. ICANN generally allows anyone to buy any domain name and keep it unless the domain is of a long established iconic brand name such as ford.com or goodwill.org. Saying that the owners of ronpaul.com agreed to the possibility that ICANN might rule Ron Paul a cultural icon, which I doubt will happen, is stating an obvious yet irrelevant fact. Dr. Paul is a great person and he’s my hero, but he’s not following his own philosophy in this instance.

Adam Raisch

Ron Paul believes in the right to litigation does he not? He also believes in the upholding of laws does he not? He also believes in the rights of personal property does he not? I think he is fully following his personal philosophy is he not?

Their are first in use rights and namesake rights that are relevant to .coms. ICANN has to arbitrate based a third party utilizing a namesake for it’s personal profit. Just because you, or anyone else, view the purchase of a domain as trivial does not make it so.

something1448

it’s extortion. i hope the son-of-a-bitch never sees a dime.

conspiracygirl

No offense, but selling something for a price, even a high price, is not extortion. Forcing people to buy something they don’t want is extortion — such as when unions use the threat of violence to force people to become union members and pay union dues. Or like when the Mafia uses threats of violence to force people to buy their “protection.” This was just a plain ordinary business deal, in which Ron Paul wanted something the other party didn’t really want to sell, and so they asked a rather steep price.
- voiceofreason
  
  What right did they have to it in the first place? They were trading and profiting on HIS name. That’s a clear violation of the non-aggression principle. There are a few so-called libertarians who don’t seem to understand the philosophy they claim to espouse. RP is in the right and the rp.com owners are in the wrong. They shouldn’t get a penny, and he should be able to sue them for trading on his name.
  - ExposerOfHypocrisy
    
    um… RonPaulFlix is also trading and profiting on HIS name. According to you, this is a clear violation of the non-aggression principle and Ron Paul should be able to sue RonPaulFlix for trading on his name. You are clearly not a “voiceofreason”; you are a cotton-headed lemming.
    - rpflix
      
      FLIX has no trading, nor profit. So no. The webserver alone costs $180/month. The google ads make about $22/month.
    - EaDiot
      
      The fact that you may be running at a loss does not mean you are not trading. Trade is trade and you confirmed there is some form of income already. QED.

http://twitter.com/skewsto Robert James

The asking price of $250k seems a little extortive, but it’s not uncommon for domains to sell for that kind of money. With that said I suggest we unsubscribe from ronpaul.com to drive down the value and launch a MONEY BOMB to fund the purchase for Dr. Paul!

http://www.facebook.com/people/Rosemary-Malloy/100002166199056 Rosemary Malloy

At this point it’s hearsay . What has Ron Paul said about this? Have we heard anything from Ron Paul on this?

SmartL

He authorized the document to get his name back. What else does he need to say?

http://twitter.com/isabellaliberty Liberty Bell

Thank you so very much for this video! Explains everything I needed to know.I just knew they were trying to bad mouth Ron Paul.

conspiracygirl

I guess I don’t understand why Ron Paul is unwilling to purchase this domain name. If this particular domain name is critical to his future plans then, like, buy it! His campaign had about 2 million dollars left over. He wouldn’t even have to spend money that came from his own pocket.
I donated a great deal of money to the Ron Paul campaign, not without personal hardship, and expected it to be used on the campaign. Personally, I feel he should have returned the leftover money to his donors — perhaps by returning it to those who donated the final 2 million dollars — or maybe the first 2 million — or whatever. Since he hasn’t done that, perhaps he can just negotiate with Tim to buy ronpaul.com. Using the money that other people donated to him shouldn’t be that painful. Alternatively he could accept their offer to give him ronpaul.org. There is nothing magical about the .com TDN. When people google info about Ron Paul they google Ron Paul, not ronpaul.com.

http://www.facebook.com/jim.untershine Jim Untershine

Marketing weenies trying to capitalize on the good works of others. These bottom-feeders should learn a trade and try to make a name for themselves and use it as a domain name. If Tim truly respected Ron Paul he would gladly relinquish the domain name in the name of saving it from the other money grubbing retards who would have used the system to hold it for ransom.

Fred Autonom

If Ron Paul is such a hypocrite and a bully and so horrible, why would they want to keep the site and continue to sell Ron Paul merchandise? Wouldn’t that make the site owner a hypocrite?

http://www.facebook.com/MikeBBlack Michael Burgess Black

There is a free market solution to this instead of forcing the clause of the contract that was involuntary and placed there because of government intervention with contract. Ron Paul has a right to challenge the domain name because of existing law. Law that does not follow the concepts of natural law. the free market solution is to force him into selling via a boycott. a statement that affiliating with or buying from ronpaul.com until ownership has transferred negatively impacts the liberty movement as ron paul would better manage and make use of such a resource No one is buying or visiting ronpaul.com but Ron Paul supporters. he has every legal right under current law and contract. however there is a good better best situation here. and i would not say supporting a government forced contract even classifies as good when you can make an example of how the free market can actually work without big brothers interference.

J Fournier

Could the owner of ronpaul.com have gotten the domain name without “voluntarily” going along with ICANN’s rules?

http://www.facebook.com/electrictroy Troy Heagy

ronpaul.com appears to be censoring posts now. They erased three of mine supporting Ron Paul. That’s all I need to know about their honesty (or lack thereof). They are trying to control the discussion to support their “he sucks” narrative. Bunch of Aussie foreigners is what they are.

James

I think it is odd how emotional people are getting over this. I think RonPaul.com’s characterization over the complaint is over the top (particularly over the forum choice, which is outside Dr. Paul’s control), but it’s not like they don’t have something of a point. The substance of the complaint seems a little weak. Dr. Paul didn’t mind there existence when he was in office and running for office (when he benefited from their publicity). And I don’t blame them for being a bit peeved when he wants to come in and pull out the rug from underneath them without proper payment (which could have been determined though more negotiations). It’s not like they had just registered the site and parked it. They built something there that has real value.

YouAreRight

Exactly correct!
SmartL

They’ve already made tons of money off of his name. What is “proper payment” for your own name? If they really supported him as they said, they would give it to him for nothing. C’mon.