Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Ron Paul Asks UN For Help Geting Control of RonPaul.com Domain From Fans

samzenpus posted about a year and a half ago | from the strange-bedfellows dept.

The Internet 611

First time accepted submitter thoughtfulbloke writes "Ron Paul has gone to the United Nations' World Intellectual Property Organization to seize control of the RonPaul.com domain from the fans that built it up, rather than purchase it. From the article: 'The proprietors of RonPaul.com say they reached out to the retired politicain and offered him RonPaul.org as a free gift, but if he "insisted" on owning RonPaul.com then they would sell it to him. There was a catch, though. It would be part of a "liberty package" with the site's 170,000 person mailing list for... wait for it... $250,000. They think the price is totally worth it: '"

cancel ×

611 comments

Welcome to Capitalism (5, Interesting)

eldavojohn (898314) | about a year and a half ago | (#42858571)

There was a catch, though. It would be part of a "liberty package" with the site's 170,000 person mailing list for... wait for it... $250,000. They think the price is totally worth it

That's the funny thing about Capitalism ... wait for it ... the market decides what the price should be. And right now, they have a very unique piece of property that will cost whatever they want to sell it for because they ... wait for it ... own it! But, you know, let's clamor and argue for the defunding and dissolution of the UN [thepoliticalguide.com] right up until it benefits us personally. This is a very surprising and disappointing action from Paul -- a politician who once rarely (if ever) contradicted himself.

From the horse's mouth [ronpaulforcongress.com] :

We must stop special interests from violating property rights and literally driving families from their homes, farms and ranches. Today, we face a new threat of widespread eminent domain actions as a result of powerful interests who want to build a NAFTA superhighway through the United States from Mexico to Canada.

We also face another danger in regulatory takings: Through excess regulation, governments deprive property owners of significant value and use of their properties – all without paying ”just compensation.”

Property rights are the foundation of all rights in a free society. Without the right to own a printing press, for example, freedom of the press becomes meaningless. Congress must work to get federal agencies out of these schemes to deny property owners their constitutional rights to life, liberty, and property.

Property rights are the foundation of all rights in a free society unless the property we're talking about are domain names that you feel are yours, right Senator Paul?

Re:Welcome to Capitalism (4, Insightful)

theedgeofoblivious (2474916) | about a year and a half ago | (#42858617)

Free market, my ass.

You hypocrite.

Re:Welcome to Capitalism (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42858729)

the only thing worse than a congressman is a hypocrite.

Re:Welcome to Capitalism (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42858813)

... But then, I repeat myself.
(With apologies to Mr. Clemens)

Re:Welcome to Capitalism (1)

balsy2001 (941953) | about a year and a half ago | (#42858843)

Is there a difference?

Re:Welcome to Capitalism (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42858627)

This comment makes about as much sense as the summary which is NONE.

Ron was a Rep. not a Sen. (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about a year and a half ago | (#42858633)

The son is the Senator.

Re:Ron was a Rep. not a Sen. (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42858689)

Where does RuPaul fit in this family? Older brother/sister to Rand? ;)

Re:Ron was a Rep. not a Sen. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42858959)

Yeah, Ayn Rand.

Amirite!

Re:Welcome to Capitalism (0)

Redmancometh (2676319) | about a year and a half ago | (#42858657)

This. So much this.

Re:Welcome to Capitalism (4, Insightful)

vlm (69642) | about a year and a half ago | (#42858679)

Property rights are the foundation of all rights in a free society unless the property we're talking about are domain names that you feel are yours

I think this is unintentionally very funny because the domain name is his name, which is presumably his property. Now if he was trying to steal "campaignforliberty.com" that would be an interesting argument assuming they weren't just domain squatters who registered well after the PR campaign started.

If there is a lesson, don't start up a 3rd party site with a name consisting of nothing but the 1st party name. Even "unofficialsupportforronpaul.com" would have been more morally justifiable than just taking the dude's name and slapping a dotcom on the end.

Re:Welcome to Capitalism (4, Insightful)

Soluzar (1957050) | about a year and a half ago | (#42858731)

At least one famous person shares my name. Which one of us owns the dot com rights?

Re:Welcome to Capitalism (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42858917)

That's a good question. What if I name a child Google and then try to get their domain name? They don't have someone named it. Also its probably worth a lot more.

Re:Welcome to Capitalism (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42858975)

There's a difference between using a website for your personal space representing yourself and using it to claim to speak for another person who it is named after. A distinction that is conspicuous by its absence from any reporting on this issue I have seen (although here and gawker are hardly a representative sample). Can it be that in their fervour to beat Ron Paul with the stick of his own alleged hypocrisy his detractors indulge in quite a degree of intellectual dishonesty?

The One True RICH Ron Paul (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42858733)

Property rights are the foundation of all rights in a free society unless the property we're talking about are domain names that you feel are yours

I think this is unintentionally very funny because the domain name is his name, which is presumably his property. Now if he was trying to steal "campaignforliberty.com" that would be an interesting argument assuming they weren't just domain squatters who registered well after the PR campaign started.

If there is a lesson, don't start up a 3rd party site with a name consisting of nothing but the 1st party name. Even "unofficialsupportforronpaul.com" would have been more morally justifiable than just taking the dude's name and slapping a dotcom on the end.

So you're saying there's only one person named Ron Paul in the entire world?

Re:The One True RICH Ron Paul (5, Funny)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | about a year and a half ago | (#42858773)

Being a libertarian is like being a Highlander. There Can Be Only One.

In the case of a trademark dispute, the disputants are brought to the 'marketplace of ideas' where they compete until only one is left alive, at which point he absorbs the market share of the others.

It's pretty fucking epic, actually.

Re:The One True RICH Ron Paul (4, Funny)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | about a year and a half ago | (#42858947)

Being a libertarian is like being a Highlander.

I'm puzzled, is this an incitements to go after libertarians' necks, or an incitement to have them dress in kilts and dance to vigorous, upbeat tunes?

Re:The One True RICH Ron Paul (3, Funny)

rezalas (1227518) | about a year and a half ago | (#42859013)

Yes.

Re:Welcome to Capitalism (4, Insightful)

Jason Levine (196982) | about a year and a half ago | (#42858749)

How is the domain automatically his if it is his name? What if the domain was registered by someone else bearing the name "Ron Paul"? Would Politician Ron Paul be able to wrest control of the domain from the not-as-well-known Ron Paul based solely on name recognition? And what if not-as-well-known Ron Paul wanted to sell the domain name? Should he be limited in selling it to someone whose name is "Ron Paul" or can he sell it to anything (for example, a fan of politician Ron Paul).

(Not saying that's what happened here. Just pointing out that having a name isn't the same thing as automatically having rights to a domain name with said name.)

Re:Welcome to Capitalism (4, Informative)

rudy_wayne (414635) | about a year and a half ago | (#42859045)

How is the domain automatically his if it is his name? What if the domain was registered by someone else bearing the name "Ron Paul"? Would Politician Ron Paul be able to wrest control of the domain from the not-as-well-known Ron Paul based solely on name recognition? And what if not-as-well-known Ron Paul wanted to sell the domain name? Should he be limited in selling it to someone whose name is "Ron Paul" or can he sell it to anything (for example, a fan of politician Ron Paul).

(Not saying that's what happened here. Just pointing out that having a name isn't the same thing as automatically having rights to a domain name with said name.)

You would be absolutely 100% correct, IF the domain ronpaul.com was being used for some other purpose. Maybe there's a plumber named Ron Paul who wants to put up a website. Or an accountant. Or a guy named Ron Paul wants to sell auto parts on the Internet. Those are all legitimate.

But that's not the case here. The domain is being used exclusively for activities relating to Ron Paul the congressman from Texas. This is exactly the definition of cybersquatting.

Re:Welcome to Capitalism (4, Interesting)

h4rr4r (612664) | about a year and a half ago | (#42858759)

So you believe his name is unique?
No one else has that name on Earth?

What if I want to make a website about how he is a hypocrite? Why can I not buy ronpaul.com and make that my site about his hypocrisy?

How about instead of more regulation we simply let the free market solve this?

Re:Welcome to Capitalism (1)

flaming error (1041742) | about a year and a half ago | (#42858935)

Good question, and I don't know what the best answer is. But a software developer named Mike Rowe was not allowed to have the domain mikerowesoft.com because microsoft thought it was too close to their name. It seems like Ron Paul has a much stronger case for ronpaul.com.

As to letting the free market solve it, good point. But he's not asking for more regulation, he's asking for enforcement of current regulations in the current system.

Re:Welcome to Capitalism (3, Insightful)

h4rr4r (612664) | about a year and a half ago | (#42859017)

What you mean is he wants to use force to make someone give him their property.

I disagree with the MikeRoweSoft.com thing even more. It was clearly nothing like microsoft.com. Anyone who would be confused by that would be too stupid to type.

Re:Welcome to Capitalism (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42858835)

Aaahahaha! Are you fucking serious? My name is "All The Gold In Fort Knox". Now hand over what is rightfully mine. Oh oh no wait, my name is also "Ron Paul", and I want my 1/1000th share of my website too.

A person's name does not give them property rights.

Re:Welcome to Capitalism (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42858901)

He owns it because those syllables were given to him by his parents, and they aren't used for anyone else?

I could pose that property is something you take, you say "this is mine" and no one argues. But now someone is arguing so the question is what is your working definition of property?

Re:Welcome to Capitalism (1)

NatasRevol (731260) | about a year and a half ago | (#42858995)

the domain name is his name, which is presumably his property

What kind of stupid logic is that?

Does everyone named Antonio own all the Antonio's pizzerias?

My name is the same as a semi-famous musician. Do I get all his royalties since I'm about 6 months older than him?

Where will that kind of 'logic' end!?!?

Re:Welcome to Capitalism (0, Troll)

Austerity Empowers (669817) | about a year and a half ago | (#42858691)

I'm not a Ron Paul supporter, and I think the hypocrisy comment regarding the UN is noted and as enjoyable as political irony can be. But, taking the high(er) road: this is a website that uses his name, is entirely about his career, and affects him materially. I think there can be only 2 fair outcomes: a C&D asking them to close shop and dissolve, or to hand the domain over to him.

Domain name squatters are at least a magnitude of filth higher than politicians, and the whole "internet real estate" business was a scam 20 years ago and is still a scam today.

Re:Welcome to Capitalism (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42858771)

But... isn't he a politician who actually supports this kind of wild capitalism?

Re:Welcome to Capitalism (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | about a year and a half ago | (#42858791)

Or give it to me and let me make a website that points out his hypocrisy.

I will make it clear it is not endorsed by him.

Re:Welcome to Capitalism (5, Interesting)

DarkOx (621550) | about a year and a half ago | (#42858883)

I have been a Paul support and I disagree. I would say unless what they are putting on the site is untrue, in which case its libel and is why we have civil courts, there is no reason they should have to turn over the name or be expected to do so without compensation. Compensation should be the price they set as its currently their property.

You can't call them squatters either they are actually using the domain, have real current content there, and its even related to the subject the name would lead you to expect. What they are doing is more or less the antithesis of domain squatting.

Really I am disappointed in Paul over this one in a big way. I don't see anything wrong with what the people on the site are doing. Actually Paul should be grateful because they are basically promoting him.

Re:Welcome to Capitalism (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42858913)

But, taking the high(er) road: this is a website that uses his name, is entirely about his career, and affects him materially. I think there can be only 2 fair outcomes: a C&D asking them to close shop and dissolve, or to hand the domain over to him.

It is factual information about a person. Does that mean people should have the right to send C&D letters to creditors, credit reporting companies, and criminal records offices? After all, those things use names, is entirely about your behavior, and affects you materially.

Re:Welcome to Capitalism (5, Insightful)

ceoyoyo (59147) | about a year and a half ago | (#42858939)

They're not squatters. They run an active web site which is about a public, political figure.

Re:Welcome to Capitalism (4, Insightful)

pixelpusher220 (529617) | about a year and a half ago | (#42858961)

This isn't domain squatting. They've been actively using the site for multiple elections expressly to promote Ron Paul. These are *his* ardent supporters who did this on their own dime and if he wants to control the benefits of that...guess what, pay up. They aren't asking for millions, just a paltry 250K. Spread over 4 years over multiple people. It's hardly trying to 'cash in' on something.

Ron Paul is both hypocritical here and right on the money. Which is that his libertarian views are that he's allowed to do whatever he wants...including suing people or running to governmental agencies for help.

Libertarianism itself is hypocritical...and it's downright fun to watch the ardent supporters get a lesson in that...

Re:Welcome to Capitalism (2)

NatasRevol (731260) | about a year and a half ago | (#42859021)

It's kind of a might makes right vs possession is 9/10ths of the law argument.

Also, these aren't domain squatters. They're actively using it ... to promote Ron Paul.

Re:Welcome to Capitalism (4, Insightful)

sumdumass (711423) | about a year and a half ago | (#42858707)

Just because the function of ridding domains of squatters is at the UN does not mean the rest of the UN's operations or conduct is legit.

Look at the LA cop thing in California in which the have shot up 3 separate scenes and wounded several completely innocent people trying to execute a criminal instead of arresting him and going to court for justice. I can talk about how much of a thug the cops are, how they are completely incompetent scared little bitches ignoring the constitutional right of due process hell bent on inflicting personal revenge on the ex cop who killed one of their own and claims to have information proving they were in the wrong for his termination and acted abhorrently in several criminal cases, but I would still call them to report my home was burglarized. That wouldn't be some giant conflict of interest or reversal of anything else I stood for..

Re:Welcome to Capitalism (3, Insightful)

10101001 10101001 (732688) | about a year and a half ago | (#42858715)

Don't worry, Ron Paul is just demonstrate that he's a true Republican. Sure, he takes principled stands..until money is involved and he can get/save money. Of course, such was clear when your idea to make a smaller government is to join that government and do nothing effective for decades to actually shrink government. Maybe joining was some sort of a protest? Well, RMS protests against proprietary software and as much as people give him slack, they still see how it tries very hard to live by his code. But the simple truth is, a true sign of character is holding to your principles precisely when it's hardest to do so. But, that doesn't give one carte blanche to ignore them on one of the most unimportant things one can imagine, his vanity plate for the internet.

So, I salute you, Ron Paul, for showing just how much you care about your facade.

Re:Welcome to Capitalism (5, Insightful)

Sarten-X (1102295) | about a year and a half ago | (#42858737)

And that just about sums up my feelings, as well.

Ron Paul's a populist politician. He's managed to paint the government as a corrupt agency of fat-cat Democrats, by ignoring the measurable good of government programs and focusing only on how much they cost. He's made the Federal Reserve a scapegoat for everything wrong with the economy, and thanks to the magic of psychology-driven Austrian economics, he can just forget about the economic problems before the Fed existed, because they were just so long ago.

This is yet another chapter in the tale of Ron Paul's subtle hypocrisy. He'll complain about globalization and fight against having any global authorities interfering in private citizens' lives, yet he has no problem running to a global authority to interfere in other people's lives on his behalf.

I'm thrilled the guy's retired (for now). Here's hoping it's permanent, and that his equally-populist son follows quickly.

Re:Welcome to Capitalism (1)

Rockoon (1252108) | about a year and a half ago | (#42858929)

He's managed to paint the government as a corrupt agency of fat-cat Democrats, by ignoring the measurable good of government programs and focusing only on how much they cost.

Is that worse than ignoring the cost and focusing only on the measurable good of government programs?

Maybe we need to operate on his premise for a few decades instead of continuing to operate on yours.

(hint: In the United States, the governments spends more per household than the median income of households)

Re:Welcome to Capitalism (1)

NatasRevol (731260) | about a year and a half ago | (#42859043)

Is that worse than ignoring the cost and focusing only on the measurable good of government programs?

Sounds like every politician, on both sides of the aisle.

Re:Welcome to Capitalism (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42858795)

Capitalism and 'the market' are disjoint.

Re:Welcome to Capitalism (2)

TC Wilcox (954812) | about a year and a half ago | (#42858805)

Property rights are the foundation of all rights in a free society unless the property we're talking about are domain names that you feel are yours, right Senator Paul?

I personally feel that he'd be much better off just ignoring the domain and creating his own website (possibly with the domain, http://domains-do-not-really-matter-anymore.com/ [domains-do...nymore.com] but I do understand where he is coming from a little bit. People will assume that whatever is being published at www.ronpaul.com will be things that Ron Paul agrees with. Think of it as a giant newletter with Ron Paul's logo on it. Of course, he could just ignore it and let them publish whatever they feel like, but if he does that and they publish something he really disagrees with it could cause some damage to his "brand." Perhaps he figures the only way to prevent a repeat of the 1980's racist newletters incident is to make sure he controls his own brand.....

Of course, once again my own opinion is that he'd be much better just getting a different domain with great content and making sure his domain *clearly* states that he has no editorial control over http://www.ronpaul.com./ [www.ronpaul.com]

Re:Welcome to Capitalism (5, Informative)

rudy_wayne (414635) | about a year and a half ago | (#42858817)

This is a very surprising and disappointing action from Paul -- a politician who once rarely (if ever) contradicted himself.

Well you haven't been paying attention.

  As a member of congress he has repeatedly added amendments to spending bills giving millions to his home district. Then when the bill comes up for a vote, knowing that the bill is going to pass, he votes against the bill. That way he gets millions in pork for his constituents and at the same time can claim he voted against a wasteful spending bill.

Re:Welcome to Capitalism (2)

pixelpusher220 (529617) | about a year and a half ago | (#42859091)

Sources? I totally believe you but I'd love to see the actual proof :)

Re:Welcome to Capitalism (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42858875)

This is an honest question: what other methods could Ron Paul have legally used to deal with this? It is my understanding that the UN's World Intellectual Property Organization is the only "legal" body capable of addressing this issue.

I don't think it is hypocrisy to work within the system - some so-called "libertarians" choose to pay their taxes, and others go on anti-tax protests that land them in jail for the entirety of their adult lives. At the same time, both of these people could have the exact same political opinions. Libertarianism - like all other political philosophies - doesn't tell you how to act - it merely informs how you think.

Re:Welcome to Capitalism (2)

NatasRevol (731260) | about a year and a half ago | (#42859053)

He doesn't have a legal right to deal with it.

That's the hypocrisy of it all.

Re:Welcome to Capitalism (1)

bsDaemon (87307) | about a year and a half ago | (#42858919)

Ron Paul was a member of the House. Rand Paul, his son, is the Senator from Kentucky.

Re:Welcome to Capitalism (1)

MightyYar (622222) | about a year and a half ago | (#42858971)

Free market? What part of a government monopoly on providing domain names seems free market to you?

Re:Welcome to Capitalism (2)

ByOhTek (1181381) | about a year and a half ago | (#42859095)

I'm not sure how you find this surprising.

A lot of 'pro-capitalism' individuals may squeal about how the government and it's influence are bad, and how great free market is, but they also are the very first to turn a blind eye if they can make a profit from it. Their goal isn't an effective economy, a well run and organized civilization, providing goods for the market, etc. Their goals are to have the larges proportion of wealth possible, regardless who/what else it may hurt.

In this case, why get something for $250,000 when he can use a group he villified to get it for much less? Assuming he doesn't want to go much further into politics, he won't have to worry too much about burning the bridges of the supporters who made the site...

Typical Libertarian (5, Insightful)

Telecommando (513768) | about a year and a half ago | (#42858639)

They're all for "free market" economics until it actually impacts them personally. Then suddenly they want government intervention and special treatment.

What a hypocrite.

Re:Typical Libertarian (4, Insightful)

h4rr4r (612664) | about a year and a half ago | (#42858735)

Why is this modded down?
This is the absolute truth. He likes the free market until it impacts him. If he does not like the price he is free to not buy this product, but instead he wants some outside actor to force this person to give up their property.

This is pretty common from what I see of libertarians.

Re:Typical Libertarian (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42858851)

Because libertarians don't like to face reality.

Re:Typical Libertarian (3, Insightful)

Kidbro (80868) | about a year and a half ago | (#42858903)

Not that I'm a libertarian (far from it), but I've never really gotten the impression that they hate trademark laws. This is (arguably) a trademark case.

Re:Typical Libertarian (4, Interesting)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | about a year and a half ago | (#42859047)

What I like is that they are fighting over something that is purely a creation of ICANN: there is nothing magic about DNS that makes domain names globally authoritative(and, unlike with fiat currency, it isn't even legally troublesome to make your own, if you can get anybody to accept them), ICANN just runs the nameservers that people give a damn about.

If they wanted to take this out to the marketplace and settle it like men, they could just each provide an IP and let their respective supporters modify their hosts files or local DNS records according to their preferences, as consumers, about which ronpaul.com offered a superior ronpaul.com product and/or service.

It's like watching two gold-bugs fighting over a $100 'federal reserve note'...

What's the big deal? (1)

ddtmm (549094) | about a year and a half ago | (#42858643)

Sounds fair to me. IT is a .com after all.

Isnt he the "king of libertarians"? (5, Insightful)

Redmancometh (2676319) | about a year and a half ago | (#42858647)

I actually liked Ron Paul right up to the point of reading this. Anyone who preaches smaller government, less control, more personal freedom, and a truly free economy and does this...Well that person is a hypocritical 2 faced..politician.

Re:Isnt he the "king of libertarians"? (3, Insightful)

Brett Buck (811747) | about a year and a half ago | (#42858765)

On the surface, Paul says a lot of things I would generally agree with. Once you dig for a while, you find a lot of stuff that is utterly loony/suicidal. The Pualbots are even more absurd.

        He loses for a reason.

Re:Isnt he the "king of libertarians"? (2)

gQuigs (913879) | about a year and a half ago | (#42858991)

> that is utterly loony/suicidal

Name it. I find that is the most common thing said about Ron Paul. That he has crazy ideas, yet most people can' t actually name one of them. It's not saying much, but he seems to be the most sane of the republican presidential candidates, by far..

I'll name one. Switching to the gold standard. It could have worked when he first got into congress, now there is way too much money to really make that work. It's also a bad idea, because gold is actually useful in electronics, not just as currency.

No he isn't (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42858859)

If there ever was a "king of libertarianism", it would have to be Harry Browne [wikipedia.org] .

Note that many libetarians consider intellectual property to be positively ANTI-capitalism. If this story is true, I'm surprised -- and also disappointed in Ron Paul.

Ron Paul is the "mainstream" libertarian -- that's why you've heard of him and not Harry Browne. IMO, Harry Browne was the thinker.

Re:No he isn't (1)

pixelpusher220 (529617) | about a year and a half ago | (#42859113)

Intellectual Property *is* anti-capitalism. Period.

It's also reasonably good for society as a whole when managed properly. We've been failing on that last part for a few decades though...

Re:Isnt he the "king of libertarians"? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42858937)

Hopefully this will lead you (and other libertarians, the current fashionable ideology of the 'net) to start expanding your world view a bit. Ideologies are a good thing to know and understand, but the world is not black and white and never as simple as your high priests may claim. This applies to you too, all 3 of you remaining communists hiding in the corner over there.

Re:Isnt he the "king of libertarians"? (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | about a year and a half ago | (#42858943)

Then you should have researched him more.

He liked smaller government when it was going to advance the things he liked. That was it.

Re:Isnt he the "king of libertarians"? (5, Insightful)

Sique (173459) | about a year and a half ago | (#42859007)

As Alfred Adler [wikipedia.org] once observed: It's easier to fight for your principles than to live according to them.

Re:Isnt he the "king of libertarians"? (3, Funny)

dkleinsc (563838) | about a year and a half ago | (#42859055)

Ron Paul: How do you do, good lady? I am Ron, King of the Libertarians. Whose mansion is that?
Woman: King of the who?
Ron Paul: King of the Libertarians.
Woman: Who are the Libertarians?
Ron Paul: Well, we all are. We are all Libertarians. And I am your king.
Woman: I didn't know we had a king. I thought we were a free republic.
Dennis: You're fooling yourself! We're living in a dictatorship. A self-perpetuating bureaucracy in which the oppressive regulations ...
Woman: Oh, there you go bringing regulation into it again.
Dennis: Well, that's what it's all about! If only people would...
Ron Paul: Please, please, good people, I am in haste. Who lives in that mansion?
Woman: No one lives there.
Ron Paul: Then who is your landlord?
Woman: We don't have a landlord.
Dennis: I told you, we're an anarcho-capitalist agricultural corporation. There's a CEO who is nominally in charge ...
Ron Paul: Yes...
Dennis: ...but all the decisions of that CEO have to be ratified at a special bi-annual shareholders meeting...
Ron Paul: Yes I see...
Dennis: ...by a simple majority in the case of purely internal affairs...
Ron Paul: Be quiet!
Dennis: ...but by a two thirds majority in the case of...
Ron Paul: Be quiet! I order you to be quiet!
Woman: Order, eh? Who does he think he is?

RonPaul.WhoCares (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42858663)

Sorry, um... Ron Who? Didn't he run for President once? Or twice? Or twenty-three times? Is he still around?

That mailing list is worth it's weight in gold (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42858665)

You have 170,000 people that are known suckers. Hell you would probably have a hit rate of 40-50% on even a 419 scam with those people.

Re:That mailing list is worth it's weight in gold (1)

punker (320575) | about a year and a half ago | (#42859103)

How much does an email list weigh? Do you need to print it out to weigh it? Or can you just stick it on a flash drive and weight that? Could dramatically affect the price if weight is the unit of measure.

sweet.. (2)

mevets (322601) | about a year and a half ago | (#42858683)

Whenever evil wins, it is only by default: by the moral failure of those who evade the fact that there can be no compromise on basic principles.

-Ayn Rand

[ regardless, she is still a horses ass ]

Re:sweet.. (2)

i kan reed (749298) | about a year and a half ago | (#42859067)

Amazingly that statement also encapsulates the shortcomings of objectivism and its attached political philosophies. Evil can also win by being manipulative, violent, or culturally embraced.

With friends like that (-1)

rudy_wayne (414635) | about a year and a half ago | (#42858693)

With friends like that who needs enemies.

This is nothing but a $250,000 shakedown by his alleged "supporters".

Re:With friends like that (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42858867)

What?? A shakedown?

If he does not consider it worth $250,000, then all he has to do is decline the deal. The Free Market works nicely like that.

Re:With friends like that (1)

moeinvt (851793) | about a year and a half ago | (#42859059)

I can see both sides of this, but I think Dr. Paul is right.

The argument is not about the free market price, it's about who actually owns the property to begin with.

Does Ron Paul own his name? Put yourself in his position. Suppose someone registered $YourName.com, generated some traffic and built a mailing list. Was it their own innovation and hard work that generated the value, or were they merely capitalizing on your fame as a Congressman, author and presidential candidate?

If they had done this with their own domain name, then yes, it would be a marketable asset. IMO, 99% of whatever value they created was because they used Ron Paul's property.

Note, I am VERY disappointed that he would take this to the UN.

Re:With friends like that (5, Interesting)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | about a year and a half ago | (#42858923)

With friends like that who needs enemies.

This is nothing but a $250,000 shakedown by his alleged "supporters".

"Back in 2007 we put our lives on hold for you, Ron, and we invested close to 10,000 hours of tears, sweat and hard work into this site at great personal sacrifice."(emphasis mine).

They are actually quite honest: they invested in him(after all, altruism would have been unethical), and now they want their ROI. This isn't a 'friendship' thing, this is a 'VCs fighting with their start-up's CEO over stock options' thing.

Geting control (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42858713)

Anyone going to get control of the title on the slashdot post?

Part of free markets is brand protection (1)

hessian (467078) | about a year and a half ago | (#42858719)

I can see Ron Paul's side of things.

He needs to control his brand, and to own it outright. Thus, he benefits not only from having ownership, but having his legal right made clear.

When we first look at this story, it's like "LOL irony afoot. Free market, bitches!"

But after some sober contemplation, one can see the wisdom of the Ron Paul team's position.

I still think that, were Ron Paul to adopt the foreign policy outlook of his son Rand, he would be electable overnight.

Re:Part of free markets is brand protection (4, Insightful)

Chirs (87576) | about a year and a half ago | (#42858973)

He needs to control his brand, and to own it outright. Thus, he benefits not only from having ownership, but having his legal right made clear.

Of course he benefits from having ownership...but that doesn't necessarily give him the right to take it away from the current owners. They bought the domain name, they built the site, they generated the traffic, and now he wants it arbitrarily transferred to him? That doesn't seem right.

Re:Part of free markets is brand protection (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42859015)

But after some sober contemplation, one can see the wisdom of the Ron Paul team's position.

Are you sure? I was sober, contemplative and really trying about quarter hour ago: it didn't make sense. Then, I had 2 quick shots of tequila and I'm dousing them with a beer: su'prise, surp-hic-prise... it started to feel like wise position, but... funny... 'tis more like a feeling of guts, I still don't get it why it's wise.

Time Value (1)

balsy2001 (941953) | about a year and a half ago | (#42858721)

This is like having options on a stock except when the Ron Paul expires the value of the domain will quickly approach 0 (it may have been different if he would have been elected president, but I doubt his name will live on as a beacon of freedom for decades or centuries). Each day that goes by they are closer to a zero value option. I don't see much value in their mailing list because most of those people probably already gave their information directly to Paul by making campaign donations. If I were the owners I would start drastically reducing the price to make a sale.

Cant see your name on it (4, Funny)

NettiWelho (1147351) | about a year and a half ago | (#42858741)

Ron: This domain belongs to me.

Fans: I dont see your name on.... ... ..oh.

There are two Ts in getting (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42858767)

The title needs to be updated.

Any non-hypocrites in the Federal Government? (2)

TheSpoom (715771) | about a year and a half ago | (#42858789)

The irony is thick in Ron Paul going to the UN for anything. Personally I feel he should probably get the domain but everything in it is the property of those who Built It, so he should get a domain with no mailing list and no content.

Re:Any non-hypocrites in the Federal Government? (1)

balsy2001 (941953) | about a year and a half ago | (#42858881)

I hear www.ronpaulstoleourdomain.com is available for their new website after RP gets the domain.

Re:Any non-hypocrites in the Federal Government? (1)

darjen (879890) | about a year and a half ago | (#42858967)

In a perfect world, the UN wouldn't be in charge of handling domain name disputes. Ron Paul would probably say the same thing. But at this point, the world is not perfect, and he can only work with existing tools. Personally, I don't think he is being a hypocrite and I think it's very likely he could have a valid right to his own name, as a well known entity that he is.

Re:Any non-hypocrites in the Federal Government? (1, Troll)

DarkOx (621550) | about a year and a half ago | (#42859063)

I commented already I don't think Paul's exception that site or domain be turned over without paying whatever is current owners demand is fair or reasonable.

I also don't think its entirely fair to slam him for going to the UN. After all its how the current rules work, he has done more to oppose them than most but did not get his way. He is still a member of our society though is expected to follow the rules. His taxes were used to fund the operations of the UN just like yours and mine. I don't see why just because his expressed preferences are that the institution should not exist means he should get to take advantage of the services it can offer him, without being automatically called a hypocrite.

Its the same thing when people slam Ayn Rand for cashing her SS checks, well again she spent her life arguing the rules were/are unfair. She lost at the ballot box so had to play the hand she was dealt; why should she have been expected to leave anything on the table?

Now if your argument had been our society should *not* be governed by popular will than I can see an argument that using the rules to your advantage as much as possible might be hypocritical.

I'll forfeit my rights to government services as soon as government forfeits its right to force me into pay the taxes that go to support them.

Ron Paul is not being hypocritical (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42858803)

Ron Paul believes the government should be stripped down to defense and a court system to handle disputes. Ron Paul believes that he owns his own name and identity and that others should not profit from it without his permission. He is going to a court to deal with a dispute over ownership of his name. He isn't trying to get that list of names for free. That is completely within his belief system. He believes in the Judicial branch and not the Legislation branch. We shouldn't have people paid to protect our environment. We should instead have enormous amounts of litigation with people suing polluters.

Re:Ron Paul is not being hypocritical (1)

ak3ldama (554026) | about a year and a half ago | (#42859097)

We should instead have enormous amounts of litigation with people suing polluters.

We all know how that ends. We also know how that almost never starts. [Dreaming]Libertarian Ideals[/Dreaming] It is like the phrase: It is better to ask forgiveness than permission. Do wrong, get rich, get caught, get slap on wrist.

I see what he did there.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42858841)

RP.COM: "The price is $250k...."
RP: "250k!?!?? Are you kidding me?"
RP.COM: "Your name is worth a lot."
RP: "We'll see about that."

Libertarianism versus libertarianism (1)

MikeRT (947531) | about a year and a half ago | (#42858863)

It would seem that doctrinaire libertarianism would be against this, but Ron Paul actually has a strong case for it because the two core values of libertarianism are you don't have a right to initiate force against another person not harming you or your property (or someone else) and you have no right to engage in fraud. Trademark exists to provide a way to clarify things in certain market transactions and marketing scenarios to prevent fraud. Unlike patents, there is a very powerful libertarian case for trademarks.

But ssssshhh don't go telling most doctrinaire libertarians such things. Their ideology isn't really any more sophisticated than "don't tell me what to do." They are less interested in creating a sustainable free society than maximizing their liberty right here, right now even if that means they know for a fact it'll crush their children (ex. open borders which is a security, cultural and economic nightmare for maintaining a well-ordered society).

are they engaging in fraud? (1)

Chirs (87576) | about a year and a half ago | (#42858999)

I don't see any fraud...right on the main page at ronpaul.com...."This site is run by independent grassroots supporters of Ron Paul."

Why should he be allowed to have it? (3, Interesting)

rs1n (1867908) | about a year and a half ago | (#42858889)

Let's put politics aside for a bit. Why should _THIS_ particular Ron Paul be allowed to "claim" ronpaul.com over some other person named Ron Paul. That combination of first and last name is not unique (http://howmanyofme.com/people/Ron_Paul/). Why should one person have a stronger claim to a domain name simply because they are more recognized by the public? I could understand the fight for MyBusinessName.com if your business is named MyBusinessName and said name is not some generic word/phrase. But whether it's Ron Paul or Michael Jordan or Joe Schmoe, I just don't see how it would be fair to all the other Ron Paul, Michael Jordan, or Joe Shmoe people.

Re:Why should he be allowed to have it? (1)

balsy2001 (941953) | about a year and a half ago | (#42858963)

A good example of this is Nissan the car company. They wanted nissan.com, but didn't get it because someone else with the name nissan already had it. This case may be different unless one of the owners happens to be named Ron Paul.

Re:Why should he be allowed to have it? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42859117)

another good recent example of this is glenn beck, who wanted WIPO to sieze the rhetorical domain "GlennBeckRapedAndMurderedAYoungGirlIn1990.com" - not because it was defamatory, but because of trademark violation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beck_v._Eiland-Hall [wikipedia.org]

attention: alanis morissette (4, Funny)

jollyreaper (513215) | about a year and a half ago | (#42858899)

This is ironic.

'Geting' in title. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42858907)

How about Slashdot asks for help with proof-reading

Re:'Geting' in title. (1)

Hsien-Ko (1090623) | about a year and a half ago | (#42859071)

Retired politicain.

ICANN (1)

ZeroSerenity (923363) | about a year and a half ago | (#42858957)

Doesn't ICANN normally handle these requests, not the UN?

Re:ICANN (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42859085)

Yes but they're using WIPO as the arbitrator.

A bunch of people are going on about free-markets and the government and how Ron Paul is a hypocrite, but he's trying to solve this problem via contract law and arbitration per ICANN's policies. This is the free-market solution and not inconsistent with his politics.

paging roman_mir ! (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42858979)

i would love to hear what noted troll and multiple account user roman_mir has to say regarding his beloved ron paul !

lol

Why the UN? (1)

JTsyo (1338447) | about a year and a half ago | (#42859061)

What about the website is IP? I don't see why this wasn't taken to the US courts if he thought he should have control.

who is ron paul? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42859077)

and why should I give a fuck?

mod L0p (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42859081)

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...