Beta
×

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!

WIPO Panel Says Ron Paul Guilty of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking

timothy posted about a year and a half ago | from the take-a-man's-name dept.

The Internet 303

An anonymous reader writes "Ron Paul lost his two cybersquatting complaints against RonPaul.com and RonPaul.org. In the case of RonPaul.org, Paul was been found guilty of 'reverse domain name hijacking'. A reverse domain name hijacking finding means that the arbitration panel believes the case was filed in bad faith, resulting in the abuse of the administrative process. The panel ruled this way since Paul filed the case after the owner of RonPaul.org had already offered to give him the domain for free. The panel also ruled against Paul for the RonPaul.com domain name."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

may I lol? (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43807335)

I may lol.

For free? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43807341)

Paul filed the case after the owner of RonPaul.org had already offered to give him the domain for free.

Why was Ron Paul trying to use the force of government to coerce someone into doing something they were already going to do?

Re:For free? (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43807373)

A politician that doesn't follow the same set of rules that they claim everyone else should have to follow? Un-possible!

Re:For free? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43807611)

Nice generalized rage inspiring moronic comment bro. Source?

Re:For free? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43808199)

How about Ron's career history? The fact that Ron Paul has been in office on and off since the 1970s, has been a type four deliverer of pork to his district, has failed to pass or even develop solid legislation based on his professed ideology, and thus has been fairly ineffective given his ideological goals, and yet believes that somehow as President he would finally have the legislative power to make all his ideological dreams come true... and without exerting any that evil presidential power that would at least be necessary to do so? How about that? Ron Paul has been around a long enough time that his ineffectiveness sort of proves he either doesn't care as much as he says, or he's just not very good.

Re:For free? (5, Insightful)

WillgasM (1646719) | about a year and a half ago | (#43807391)

He wanted both the .com and .org. They offered to sell him the .com and/or give him the .org for free. I'm willing to bet he didn't take the .org for fear that it would hurt his ability to file for the .com, like a settlement of sorts.

Re:For free? (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43807407)

This.
The .com wanted $250,000 [slashdot.org]

Re:For free? (5, Insightful)

arth1 (260657) | about a year and a half ago | (#43807553)

And in a free market they should be allowed to ask whatever price they want, whether two zorkmids or half a tonne of diamonds.

The price has nothing whatsoever to do with the issue here, which was whether Ron Paul had a right to the domains. He did not show that he did.

Re:For free? (3, Insightful)

Synerg1y (2169962) | about a year and a half ago | (#43807643)

It seems like Ron Paul was mad...

They wanted 250k for the site, but they did legitimately own it. Now, nobody in their right mind would appraise the site at 250k based on its code base and email list, but... there's nothing to stop them from asking 250k or even 1 mil for the site. Not sure what Ron didn't get here, but it makes me wonder if he was just providing lip service to the people during his political career based on this move.

Re:For free? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43807947)

"but it makes me wonder if he was just providing lip service to the people during his political career based on this move"

just look up his record if you're going to spew bullshit. jackass.

Re:For free? (1)

cheater512 (783349) | about a year and a half ago | (#43808043)

Actually the mailing list alone could easily be worth than $250k.

The site wouldn't be worth much, its the people following the site that determines the value.

Re:For free? (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43807707)

"In a free market"... What utter BS. "Finders keepers" is a fine argument for the schoolyard, but it's moral value is negligible. Ownership rights come with responibilities, especially ownership rights to unique resources. If a party decides to take ownership of something with the sole purpose of ransoming it to an owner who will actually use it, that is not "free market" - it's exploitation.

"Free market" only works when the market is actually free. Ransoming a unique resource is not the free market in action.

Re:For free? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43807757)

Except wasn't being held as ransom. Go visit the site: ronpaul.com [ronpaul.com] . It's almost like they like the guy! It's all around hilarious and ironic; I love it!

Re:For free? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43807859)

But yet when it comes to ransoming someone's health care, general health, or basic safety then it's fine to let the "free market" decide what that's worth without any regulation?

Ron Paul nutters like to live in their pretend amazing free market world until it actually bites them in the ass and then it's just not fair!

Re:For free? (2, Interesting)

geekprime (969454) | about a year and a half ago | (#43807871)

"Finders keepers" is a fine argument for the schoolyard, but it's moral value is negligible. Ownership rights come with responibilities, especially ownership rights to unique resources. If a party decides to take ownership of something with the sole purpose of ransoming it to an owner who will actually use it, that is not "free
market" - it's exploitation.

So when applying that "logic" of yours to the oil and gas companies pulling the unique and limited resource of fossil fuels out of the ground, how exactly do you explain away the obvious moral problem?

Re:For free? (4, Insightful)

meglon (1001833) | about a year and a half ago | (#43807923)

It's only a "free market" when it doesn't stop "free marketers" from getting everything they want, in the manner they want it, for the cost they want to pay for it. What "free marketers" never seem to get is: the "free market" has no morals.

Re:For free? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43808069)

(I'm the grandparent AC)

"So when applying that "logic" of yours to the oil and gas companies pulling the unique and limited resource of fossil fuels out of the ground, how exactly do you explain away the obvious moral problem?"

Actually it sounds like we're on the same side. I said "Ownership rights come with responibilities [sic]". IMO, if the "owner" of a resource is not using it in a responsible manner, they should have their ownership voided.

It seems a few people have taken my comment to be some sort of libertarian rant. It was intended as the complete opposite. I'm an anarcho-collectivist (loosely speaking - I don't think beyond Randroids anyone thinks strictly within defined boundaries).

As a few people have mentioned, it seems the ronpaul.com site is actually used to promote ron paul, so my talk of "ransoming" was a bit off the mark :-). I also think Ron Pauls hypocisy in getting the courts to enforce his own desires is indeed humorous. I merely took objection to the references to "free market" in this story. It's not a free market issue at all. Free markets can only operate when there is fluid supply and demand, and where the barrier to entry for new participants is surmountable

Re:For free? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43808269)

But Ron Paul would disagree that someone loses their rights to their private property simply because someone else decides the free market's interest would be better served if that property were made available. It is my right to sit on my possessions and someone can't just come along and decide they can take away a possession simply because the free market puts value on its uniqueness. It's MY property. If I want to make crazy demands on its price, I can. There's no such thing as a random in the free market. It's not your property, if you want it, you have to pay for it, not run to the government and have it take it for you.

Re:For free? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43808091)

If they were burning all the fuel themselves and demanded money to stop doing so, the analogy would work.

Re:For free? (4, Interesting)

FatLittleMonkey (1341387) | about a year and a half ago | (#43808161)

"Finders keepers" is a fine argument for the schoolyard, but

Actually, "Homesteading" is a central part of libertarianism. And according to that philosophy, no one has the moral authority to be able to tell the homesteader that they are not "responsibly" using their homestead/resources. Provided they make a clearly defined claim, and maintain a clear boundary, the claim is theirs.

[Disclaimer: I'm not a libertarian, but then, it would seem neither is Ron Paul.]

Re:For free? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43807917)

Competition is an integral part of free markets. If the domain has already been registered, there can be no competition. The situation here has absolutely nothing to do with a free market.

Re:For free? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43807991)

So there can be no free market in real estate? If a plot of land has already been taken, there can be no competition, after all (except for whole wide world around it).

Here, there's still quite a lot to choose from [wikipedia.org] .

And if he's still not satisfied - sure, he could start a DNS parallel to ICANN and convince people to use it if they want his website to be at ronpaul.com.

Re:For free? (1)

FatLittleMonkey (1341387) | about a year and a half ago | (#43808205)

Competition is impossible without a recognition of ownership. (You can't sell what you don't own.) And logically, ownership must be traced back to a first owner, and hence an original claim.

Re:For free? (1)

Todd Knarr (15451) | about a year and a half ago | (#43808071)

I think it wasn't so much that he didn't show he had a right to the domains, as he didn't show that the current owners didn't. How it's supposed to work is that someone who has rights to the name wins over someone who doesn't, but if both parties have a right to use the name then whoever registered it first wins. "Rights" here gets a bit fuzzy, too. Ron Paul himself obviously has a right to use his name, but eg. a blogger doing commentary on Ron Paul's political activities also has a right to use the name (he's got every right to name who he's commenting on).

Re:For free? (0)

Lazere (2809091) | about a year and a half ago | (#43807411)

Well that certainly worked...

Re:For free? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43807459)

Yes, and that seems like an attached string to me. FTA "Respondent offered to give the Domain Name ronpaul.org to Complainant for no charge, with no strings attached,"

Re:For free? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43807649)

Not being willing to give you my cat is not a "string" on me giving you a dog.

Re:For free? (1)

Bert64 (520050) | about a year and a half ago | (#43807471)

Who's to say the two domains were even owned by the same people?

Re:For free? (4, Funny)

ShanghaiBill (739463) | about a year and a half ago | (#43807637)

Who's to say the two domains were even owned by the same people?

The linked article.

Re:For free? (1)

intermodal (534361) | about a year and a half ago | (#43807497)

That's my impression as well. The domain owners seem to have played the WIPO, along with any (likely) dislike the WIPO has for men like Paul who would dismantle countless copyright extensions and protections that he feels overreach the reasonable limits of copyright's intent.

Re:For free? (1, Informative)

Fluffeh (1273756) | about a year and a half ago | (#43807415)

Why was Ron Paul trying to use the force of government to coerce someone into doing something they were already going to do?

From the article (Really, sometimes reading it gives a whole new insight into a story):

The owners had offered to sell RonPaul.com to Paul but also offered to give him RonPaul.org as an alternative if Paul didn’t want to buy the .com.

Re:For free? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43807483)

Wait, so this his fanclub at ronpaul.(com|org) wanted to share, .org for free or .com for money and keep the other, but he wanted both and for free. So he tried to get the regulators to take it away from owners and give to him, and failed?

The libertarian spirit's almost tangible there.

Re:For free? (1)

intermodal (534361) | about a year and a half ago | (#43807511)

The article lacks numbers, but I have a feeling their asking price was far above and beyond the threshold of reasonable amounts. I just don't care enough to delve into it at 4:59 in the afternoon.

Re:For free? (4, Insightful)

rahvin112 (446269) | about a year and a half ago | (#43807545)

So what exactly is fair?

1. The cost for the remaining registered years?

2. The cost for the 12+ years they have registered the domain?

3. The cost of the 12+ years of domain registration and the cost of a building up a valuable website with large traffic?

4. The actual value of the domain on the open market?

Be careful what you choose. The operators were just asking for some minor reimbursement for all the time they've put into the site. It is my understanding that the site draws enough traffic to make the advertising quite valuable and Paul wanted them to just give it to him, AND he used the very organization he frequently rallies against.

Re:For free? (3, Insightful)

rjstanford (69735) | about a year and a half ago | (#43807549)

The article lacks numbers, but I have a feeling their asking price was far above and beyond the threshold of reasonable amounts. I just don't care enough to delve into it at 4:59 in the afternoon.

It was a quarter mil. Not an unreasonable amount to pay for the list of data it came with actually, from a fundraising data point of view - and that's ignoring all of the other social value. Of course, as a libertarian, he should admire their hard work and pricing power but feel free to walk away from a deal that's not beneficial to him.

Nah, let's just bring the WIPO into it.

Libertarians behaving badly? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43807829)

What i find amusing is that Ron P. is perfectly willing to use the system ( same one he usually decries as anti-competitive, stifling to initiative and free enterprise) in order to force registered owner of a good ( the domains) to give them up for free. Apparently a different set of rules apply to Ron Paul.

Re:Libertarians behaving badly? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43807949)

Oh, so you think in a perfect libertarian system that there won't be organizations of governance? Especially one that isn't backed by a national government? Where the fuck do uninformed asshats like you come from?
 
Libertarianism is not anarchy no matter who tries to draw that parallel.

Re:Libertarians behaving badly? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43808027)

Oh, so you think in a perfect libertarian system that there won't be organizations of governance?

Well, I certainly wouldn't think he'd try to steal a domain name from someone. That doesn't exactly sound like something a free market supporter would do.

Re:Libertarians behaving badly? (1)

FatLittleMonkey (1341387) | about a year and a half ago | (#43808251)

WIPO isn't the mutually agreed governing body of those who run the DNS network, ICANN is.

Under libertarianism, unless both Ron Paul and the domain owners agreed to use WIPO as an independent adjudicator, WIPO has no moral authority over domain name ownership.

Re:Libertarians behaving badly? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43808293)

Someone who believes eminent domain is a threat shouldn't try to coax the government to give him someone else's property for free just because he feels entitled to do more with it.

Re:For free? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43808201)

The law of supply and demand applies here.

A word is worth nothing. Rights to a label are worth whatever you can get someone to pay for it. If Ron Paul had paid 250K for the domain, then that is what it would be worth. Instead, he tried to pay by sacrificing his principles. Unfortunately, once he sacrificed them, they became worth less than nothing, and he couldn't afford the domain name.

Re:For free? (0, Flamebait)

Dahamma (304068) | about a year and a half ago | (#43808115)

The most bizarre part about this IMO is the site is still claims to be a "grassroots Ron Paul supporter site" even after Paul basically threatened them and claimed the site was a scam trying to sell goods and advertising based on his name. Stupid is as stupid does, I guess.

Re:For free? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43807523)

Why was Ron Paul trying to use the force of government to coerce someone into doing something they were already going to do?

Because he's a libertard, and free stuff is evil.

Re:For free? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43807641)

Because he's a hypocritical scumbag? People (mostly libertarians, but even others) make a big deal about how at least he sticks to his principles even if they [are crazy/will get him shunned by the establishment] but he's all in favour of government restrictions on liberty if it's a liberty or right he hates enough.

Re:For free? (4, Informative)

diamondmagic (877411) | about a year and a half ago | (#43807669)

To quote Lew Rockwell [lewrockwell.com] :

Ron is not using the State to acquire RonPaul.com. He could have brought a lawsuit in US government courts, but he did not. He is seeking to have ICANN enforce its own rules against cybersquatting, including the rule against registering a famous person’s name and making money off it. Anyone registering a URL agrees to keep all the rules, just as he must pay a recurring fee. A URL is not private property in the normal sense. It is a license, and ICANN is a private, non-profit organization.

Ron is not calling on the UN. ICANN has four approved arbitration organizations. Because the RP.com guys registered Ron's name in Australia, the international arbitration option must be used. Yes, it is associated with the UN. Too bad, but one must play the cards one is dealt. The UN itself is not involved, though note—whatever else is wrong with it—the UN is not a State.

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.

Re:For free? (0)

Cyberax (705495) | about a year and a half ago | (#43808049)

So? He's still using a government-approved organization. Real libertardian would set up his own DNS root server and ask their followers to use it.

Re:For free? (3, Insightful)

SteveFoerster (136027) | about a year and a half ago | (#43808119)

As a libertarian, I find the level of contortion you're willing to accept to defend Ron Paul's hypocritical approach to this issue is pretty awful.

The UN is a cartel created by the politicians of the world to serve their own interests. Every dime they get is stolen. Your Rockwell quote makes it sound akin to a non-profit organization like the United Way. Hardly.

And even if one accepts that ridiculous premise, if nothing else, Ron Paul has been amazingly foolish for walking into a situation that makes him look like a hypocrite, especially now after having earned the nickname "Dr. No" for his stolid Congressional voting record.

His actions here are a blight on his reputation and on the libertarian movement of which he's such a prominent part. Rockwell's bread has been buttered by Ron Paul for decades, so I suppose I understand his leaping to Paul's defense, but the rest of us should be more loyal to the truth than to one man.

Re:For free? (1)

diamondmagic (877411) | about a year and a half ago | (#43808291)

I don't see what the UN part has to do with it. The rules are voluntary, period.

Now I don't even like the ICANN, but I don't like a number of corporations, and what else is a person to do, it's not wrong to do, certainly.

Fact is, he did wait until retiring before asking any organization to do this. To refrain from using one's powers as a politician is, I think, very honorable.

"Ron Paul Guilty." I can live with that. (1)

swschrad (312009) | about a year and a half ago | (#43807749)

because it makes him feel like a real man, that's why.

Well, Ron Paul does love government intervention (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43807343)

As one of those libertarian types, clearly he felt that anything being offered for free was a trap, and therefore imposing government regulation on the original owner to have it legislated into his ownership instead was totally in tune with his stance on avoiding regulation on the free market, and all that other delusional crap he spouts to con the masses without actually believing any of it.

Re:Well, Ron Paul does love government interventio (1)

rjstanford (69735) | about a year and a half ago | (#43807531)

As one of those libertarian types, clearly he felt that anything being offered for free was a trap....

and anything that was being offered for money was too expensive, even though he really wanted it, so he should get it for frees.

Lol. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43807375)

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha.

My prediction (5, Insightful)

Sarten-X (1102295) | about a year and a half ago | (#43807401)

I predict the Pauls will use this for political gain. All it takes is a bit of spin:

Clearly the "official" establishment is failing to support the little guy who just wants to use his own name. Because they obviously aren't catering to the desires of a particularly-vocal individual, they must of course just be a tool for oppression by the Big Government. After all, what good are these "rules" and "procedures" when they hinder the industrious and innovative people building their own future, and instead help the lazy people just using others' names?

Re:My prediction (2)

VortexCortex (1117377) | about a year and a half ago | (#43807825)

Based on the new YourName.com legislation, I will repeatedly file name changes and RULE the Internet as Father and Son!

Good. (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43807421)

He was being a hypocritical bastard.

Re:Good. (1)

arth1 (260657) | about a year and a half ago | (#43807627)

He was being a hypocritical bastard.

Next thing you'll tell us that the pope is a catholic.

No strings attached? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43807431)

FTA "Respondent offered to give the Domain Name ronpaul.org to Complainant for no charge, with no strings attached,"

They offered to give it to him for free if he didnt want to pay for the .com domain. There are strings attached, namely that he wouldn't be able to get the .com domain....

Re:No strings attached? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43807475)

Offering something to somebody for free and saying that you won't offer something separate for free as well is not a "string".

Re:No strings attached? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43807565)

But giving up his ability to get the other domain is

Re:No strings attached? (1)

FatLittleMonkey (1341387) | about a year and a half ago | (#43808279)

It was never his to "give up".

Re:No strings attached? (1)

Dahan (130247) | about a year and a half ago | (#43807925)

There are strings attached, namely that he wouldn't be able to get the .com domain....

No, pretty sure he could also get the .com domain if he paid $250K. Regardless of whether or not he accepted the free .org. I don't see any strings.

Lol free market amirite? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43807481)

Priced as the market will bear, bitch.

re: free market (1)

M. Baranczak (726671) | about a year and a half ago | (#43808079)

As the exorcist said, "possession is 9/10 of the law."

Reading the article... (2)

intermodal (534361) | about a year and a half ago | (#43807485)

...it doesn't actually look like Paul is guilty of anything but refusing to accept a settlement that was unreasonable in the first place. I already didn't trust the WIPO before, and this certainly didn't help improve their image in my eyes.

Re:Reading the article... (4, Insightful)

rjstanford (69735) | about a year and a half ago | (#43807509)

...it doesn't actually look like Paul is guilty of anything but refusing to accept a settlement that was unreasonable in the first place.

"You want this one? You can have it for free - but this one over here we've added a shit-ton of value to so we want some compensation (below free-market rate IMO) for it."

Doesn't seem terribly unreasonable to me, even ignoring the fact that RP likes to tell people that he's something close to a pure libertarian.

Re:Reading the article... (2)

Curunir_wolf (588405) | about a year and a half ago | (#43807557)

...it doesn't actually look like Paul is guilty of anything but refusing to accept a settlement that was unreasonable in the first place.

"You want this one? You can have it for free - but this one over here we've added a shit-ton of value to so we want some compensation (below free-market rate IMO) for it."

Doesn't seem terribly unreasonable to me, even ignoring the fact that RP likes to tell people that he's something close to a pure libertarian.

How do you arrive at the judgement that $250,000 is "below free-market rate"??

Re:Reading the article... (1)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | about a year and a half ago | (#43807635)

...it doesn't actually look like Paul is guilty of anything but refusing to accept a settlement that was unreasonable in the first place.

"You want this one? You can have it for free - but this one over here we've added a shit-ton of value to so we want some compensation (below free-market rate IMO) for it."

Doesn't seem terribly unreasonable to me, even ignoring the fact that RP likes to tell people that he's something close to a pure libertarian.

How do you arrive at the judgement that $250,000 is "below free-market rate"??

The email list that came with the site was valued at over $2,000,000.

Re:Reading the article... (1, Insightful)

kqs (1038910) | about a year and a half ago | (#43808283)

The email list that came with the site was valued at over $2,000,000.

Yeah, a list of people gullible enough to believe the tripe that Ron Paul spouts would be very valuable to marketers.

It's fun watching the Paul fans running around trying to justify his actions. Much like Ayn Rand supporters justifying her actions. I mean, nobody's perfect, but to hear libertarians first heaping scorn upon people who use government services, and then go bawling to the government as soon as they need those services, is truly awesome. Welcome to the 47%!

Re:Reading the article... (2)

the_fat_kid (1094399) | about a year and a half ago | (#43808275)

$250,000 is chump change to a political campaign. Just the Email list with it was worth far more.
Wikipedia says of the campaign,"By April 2012, the campaign had raised more than $38 million."
that's without "RP.com" think of what they could have made with it.

Re:Reading the article... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43807731)

...ignoring the fact that RP likes to tell people that he's something close to a pure libertarian.

is that like being a true scotsman?

__
Posting ac due to mod points

Re:Reading the article... (1)

Penguinisto (415985) | about a year and a half ago | (#43807771)

...but this one over here we've added a shit-ton of value to so we want some compensation (below free-market rate IMO) for it.

This leads to a question - exactly what value did they add to it, aside from paying the domain registration fees and keeping the website up? Anyone could do those things for a lot less than $250k, even if done over 10+ years. Also, in fairness to Paul (hypocrisy aside), it was his name. Not too many Ron Pauls out there in this world...

Then again, a previous employer of mine shelled out $7m (yes, million) USD for a .com of their company's name, namely because the dude that had it was using it for his own reasons (the guy had a little hobby website and small hobbyist store, while the company makes commercial/industrial versions of the same thing), and the guy had it for far longer than the company itself existed. The original name owner wasn't interested in offers that were under $1m, and given that he had an airtight case for keeping it, there was nothing the company could do.

Re:Reading the article... (1)

TapeCutter (624760) | about a year and a half ago | (#43808157)

exactly what value did they add to it

A comprehensive mailing list for RP fanatics, and a revenue stream from advertising.

Also, in fairness to Paul (hypocrisy aside), it was his name.

While we are on the subject of "fairness" according to TFA the umpire found RP to be engaging in "reverse domain name hijacking" (knowingly making a false accusation of squatting).

Re:Reading the article... (2)

arth1 (260657) | about a year and a half ago | (#43807779)

...it doesn't actually look like Paul is guilty of anything but refusing to accept a settlement that was unreasonable in the first place.

RTFA - he was found gulity of reverse domain name hijacking, which isn't stealing a PTR record as one might think, but accusing someone of domain squatting when you demonstrably know they aren't squatting (in this case because they offered it to you).

I also fail to find any reference to a settlement.
RP: Give me both A and B, or else.
Owners: It's our property. You can buy A or get B for free.
RP: Else!

That's not a settlement.

Free market! (5, Funny)

daniel.garcia.romero (2755603) | about a year and a half ago | (#43807487)

Free market will fix that! There's always www.ronpaul.bs or www.ronpaul.museum available.

Re:Free market! (1)

Penguinisto (415985) | about a year and a half ago | (#43807783)

Just don't register ronpaul.xxx (*shudder!*)

(now if you'll excuse me, I have to go try and wash my brain out...)

Re:Free market! (1)

meglon (1001833) | about a year and a half ago | (#43807953)

Images.... bad, bad images... must beach brain quickly.

A pox be on you i say!

Site owners not so innocent looking. (3, Informative)

Crosshair84 (2598247) | about a year and a half ago | (#43807505)

Here is what I posted in the last thread on this:

According to whois, RonPaul.com was registered in 2000 while RonPaul.org was registered in 1999. The current owner of RonPaul.org is DN Capital Inc, a company based in Panama, while RonPaul.com is owned by WKF Corp, another company based in Panama.

This right here is sending up red flags. A "fan site" whose domain name is owned by some corporation in Panama? This isn't some Hary Alderson in Vermont who owns the domain name, as one might expect from a fan site. It is some company in Panama who, for all we know, may or may not be a shell company.

Second, Ron Paul DID NOT go to "The UN" for this, he went to the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center, whose JOB it is to settle disputes like this. There is nothing hypocritical about this. WIPO would exist absent the UN for this purpose. He may not LIKE the UN, but he is working within the system as it currently exists even though he would like that system changed. I don't like the city government where I live and wish it were set up differently, but you bet your butt I go to them when I have a problem or need something taken care of under their jurisdiction.

RP wanted only the domain name, yet the "owners" of the site wanted to sell him the whole thing for a huge chunk of cash? That's not "Fan site", that's "trying to hit up a public figure for money and cash out". Wanting to sell the whole nine yards so eagerly, and for so much, doesn't sound like any "fan site" I've ever heard of.

Sorry, the owners of ronpaul.com are looking awfully shady. Say what you want about Dr. Paul, the owners of the domain are not looking so innocent and it is looking that Dr, Paul may have a decent case for cybersquatting. We simply don't have enough information to be 100% sure. Considering Dr. Paul's past, I'm tending toward giving him the benefit of the doubt for now, but I would certainly like more information before definitively siding one way or the other on this. There is probably a lot of details that we don't know about.

Re:Site owners not so innocent looking. (5, Insightful)

Waffle Iron (339739) | about a year and a half ago | (#43807605)

A "fan site" whose domain name is owned by some corporation

Corporations are just groups of people freely associating with each other.

in Panama?

Property rights are a fundamental human right. It doesn't matter where you are located; you have the right to your own property.

Spin it any way you like, the good doctor wants to use an arm of the UN to confiscate other peoples' property by threat of force.

A much better way to resolve the problem would be by using the free market: There are trillions of DNS names still available on the free market for only a couple of bucks per year. He should just pick one and be happy that he obtained this new property without resorting to coercion.

Re:Site owners not so innocent looking. (2)

frosty_tsm (933163) | about a year and a half ago | (#43807659)

Domain names aren't the same as land or objects; they are closer to (but not the same as) copyright, patents and trademarks. Are they using their copyright/patent/domain in good faith or are they trolling to make money off of others (someone running for office; someone who actually built something described in a patent, etc).

Re:Site owners not so innocent looking. (1)

the eric conspiracy (20178) | about a year and a half ago | (#43807765)

Domain names are not objects, however they also are not intellectual property like copyrights or patents because a domain name does not have the same ability to be used by many without depriving the original owner of it's utility.

Re:Site owners not so innocent looking. (1)

CannonballHead (842625) | about a year and a half ago | (#43807713)

Property rights are a fundamental human right. It doesn't matter where you are located; you have the right to your own property.

Err... who decides if it is your property or my property? Is that somehow included in this "fundamental right" ?

Re:Site owners not so innocent looking. (1)

kqs (1038910) | about a year and a half ago | (#43808299)

I'm a free man, so mah GUN decides!

(Unless you have a bigger gun, then I'll go crying to the local government-formed organization. Boo hoo!)

Re:Site owners not so innocent looking. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43807763)

Property rights are a fundamental human right. It doesn't matter where you are located; you have the right to your own property.

I agree, but this dispute isn't over property. It's over the registration of a couple of domains on the Internet.You know, database entries--not property.

Re:Site owners not so innocent looking. (3, Insightful)

NeutronCowboy (896098) | about a year and a half ago | (#43807647)

RP wanted only the domain name, yet the "owners" of the site wanted to sell him the whole thing for a huge chunk of cash? That's not "Fan site", that's "trying to hit up a public figure for money and cash out". Wanting to sell the whole nine yards so eagerly, and for so much, doesn't sound like any "fan site" I've ever heard of.

In a free market unencumbered by government regulation, the value of anything is precisely the sum that party B pays party A for it. Everything else is just negotiating tactic. In other words, Ron Paul just tried to use a supra-national organization to negotiate down the price of party A's property. Clearly, Libertarians are libertarian only for as long as it allows them to make more money. Otherwise, they're perfectly happy to invoke regulations.

Re:Site owners not so innocent looking. (1)

meglon (1001833) | about a year and a half ago | (#43807975)

Duh.

I'd mod you up, but i never have mod points when they matter.

Re:Site owners not so innocent looking. (2)

SteveFoerster (136027) | about a year and a half ago | (#43808015)

Clearly, Libertarians are libertarian only for as long as it allows them to make more money. Otherwise, they're perfectly happy to invoke regulations.

No, clearly Ron Paul is. Nice try, though.

Re:Site owners not so innocent looking. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43808089)

Right. We should paint everyone we don't understand, who is different from us, all exactly the same.

- All democrats are pro-slavery, because the pre-civil war democratic party was pro slavery.
- All republicans are murderers, because Albert Peterson murdered his wife.
- All white people are sadists, because Marquis De Saude was white.
- All muslims are terrorists, because of Al Quaida
- All irish are terrorists, because of the IRA
- All black people are crack heads, because Marion Barry was
- All spanish speakers are tyrants, because Hugo Chavez was
- All italians are mobsters
- All americans are fat
- All french are snooty
- Indians can't do tech support

Did I miss anyone? Do you see the intolerance of your post? Do /. moderators begin to get the whole lack of tolerance around here?

Re:Site owners not so innocent looking. (2)

Bill_the_Engineer (772575) | about a year and a half ago | (#43807661)

Ron Paul DID NOT go to "The UN" for this, he went to the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center, whose JOB it is to settle disputes like this.

WIPO is a UN agency. So technically Ron Paul did go to the "UN".

There is nothing hypocritical about this. WIPO would exist absent the UN for this purpose.

So what? If my grandma had balls, she'd be called grandpa. You are fabricating a lot of conjecture to defend his hypocrisy. Despite his insistence that the free market is the cure for all of his issues, he resorted to using a government agency to solve his "problem". Not only was it a government agency, it was an UN agency.

A free market solution would involve paying the $250,000 for the site (which seemed to be a fair value considering how much mass advertising goes for during an election), or creating a different web site like campaignforliberty.org. Looks like he wanted his cake and eat it too.

Re:Site owners not so innocent looking. (1)

M. Baranczak (726671) | about a year and a half ago | (#43807985)

Look, it's simple: if the USDA didn't inspect meat-packing plants, the free market would step in and offer that service. Therefore, the USDA is not a government agency. And Ron Paul should get meat for free.

Re:Site owners not so innocent looking. (1)

Comrade Ogilvy (1719488) | about a year and a half ago | (#43807761)

Let us assume, for the sake of argument, that the other party is indeed "shady". So what? According to libertarian principles, the gov't and gov't bodies have no business interfering with non-fraudulent activities (or otherwise probable crimes).

What is the fraudulent activity involved here? Why would a touchy-feely assessment of the personal character of one party (the shady scumbags) actually matter unless and until there is clear evidence of fraud?

Re:Site owners not so innocent looking. (3, Insightful)

nickmalthus (972450) | about a year and a half ago | (#43807781)

The site owners clearly stated Ron Paul didn't even attempt to negotiate before filing his greivance, completely bypassing a free market solution he always favors over government intervention. In every one of his speeches he always bashes every function of government and only relents to the necessity of government in vague terms when pressed. As a congressman he participated in pork barrel spending for his district and his response was basically "when in Rome...". Appearantly he has no issue wielding the force of law on an unethical basis when it furthers his own personal interest. He is a hypocrite.

Re:Site owners not so innocent looking. (1)

msauve (701917) | about a year and a half ago | (#43807883)

According to whois, RonPaul.com was registered in 2000 while RonPaul.org was registered in 1999. The current owner of RonPaul.org is DN Capital Inc, a company based in Panama, while RonPaul.com is owned by WKF Corp, another company based in Panama.

Odd, because when I do a whois, ronpaul.com points to a privacy service. If you had read the decision about ronpaul.org, you would have found this to explain the Panama Conspiracy:

By way of background, Respondent explains that the original registration for the Domain Name on July 28, 1999, by Donny McIveron on behalf of Complainant, expired on July 28, 2012. On September 13, 2012, the Domain Name was purchased by Customer 13725, who resold it to the Respondent DN Capital Inc. Respondent claims it received the Domain Name on October 30, 2012 and resold it on November 4, 2012 to JNR Corp. (âoeJNRâ), which is stated to be a group of dedicated activists and independent grassroots supporters of Complainantâ(TM)s political ideals. When the Complaint was filed in this case, JNR still had one payment left to make to Respondent to complete its purchase of the Domain Name, so the WhoIs records for the Domain Name still listed Respondent as owner.

Then you go on...

"RP wanted only the domain name, yet the "owners" of the site wanted to sell him the whole thing for a huge chunk of cash?"

That's inaccurate. They didn't want to sell at all. It was only after Ron Paul's organization approached them that they put a price on the domain.

Re:Site owners not so innocent looking. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43807981)

Sorry, the owners of ronpaul.com are looking awfully shady.

Well, they are libertarians. What else would you expect?

Apparently schadenfreude.com is avilable. (4, Funny)

conspirator23 (207097) | about a year and a half ago | (#43807517)

So is cognitivedissonance.com. Both seem so much more... appropriate now.

Ron Paul: Hijacker. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43807617)

You know how it is. First, they start hijacking domain names, and then just a few years later, they start flying them into buildings. Stop Ron Paul now, before it's too late!

different for liberals? (0)

neghvar1 (1705616) | about a year and a half ago | (#43807841)

Considering recent events, I bet if this concerned a liberal instead of a libertarian, ICE would seize the domain a declare it as belonging to that liberal politician and the justices would turn a blind eye on it.

Re:different for liberals? (1)

scot4875 (542869) | about a year and a half ago | (#43808017)

It's great when you get to speculate about what might happen and use it to make your opponents look bad. Let me try:

I'll bet if it were a liberal instead of a libertarian, they'd have not only found him guilty of reverse domain name hijacking, but they'd have probably shot him as well.

Wow, my speculation sounds like a way more horrible outcome than yours. Liberals must be so oppressed!

--Jeremy

It shouldn't be called hijacking. (1)

sbluen (1307489) | about a year and a half ago | (#43807999)

It is a misnomer to call this hijacking because someone in Ron Paul's position would have had reason to believe that he actually had the right to own that domain name.

Reverse? (1)

d34thm0nk3y (653414) | about a year and a half ago | (#43808241)

Shouldn't taking someone's domain "by force" just be domain name hijacking?
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?