Ron Paul Asks UN For Help Geting Control of RonPaul.com Domain From Fans 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: '"
Re:Welcome to Capitalism (Score:1, Informative)
the only thing worse than a congressman is a hypocrite.
Re:Welcome to Capitalism (Score:5, Informative)
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 (Score:4, Informative)
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 (Score:4, Informative)
This is exactly the definition of cybersquatting.
As a matter of fact, No, it's not. [wikipedia.org]
Re:Welcome to Capitalism (Score:5, Informative)
Citations provided:
Ron Paul's Hypocrisy on Earmarks, Pork-Barrel Spending [yahoo.com]
Ron Paul, Big-Government Libertarian [washingtonpost.com]
Re:Welcome to Capitalism (Score:4, Informative)
He's managed to paint the government as a corrupt agency of fat-cat Democrats
I wish this where true. He spent the bulk of the time during the debates and afterwards complaining the problem was Republicans. I agree with you about being glad he is retiring. I wish they would all "retire" after 2 or 3 terms.
Re:Welcome to Capitalism (Score:5, Informative)
Really? Do you even know what the term cybersquatter means? Cause you might want to go look it up.
Just because his name is Ron Paul does not mean he gets to force ronpaul.com to be handed over to him. REGARDLESS OF WHAT THE WEBSITE IS ABOUT.
It doesn't matter if it's a pro-Ron Paul website, a farcical Ron Paul website, or pointing out all of his errors.
He didn't register it. He didn't create it. He didn't update it. He didn't do anything for it.
It's not his.
Re:Welcome to Capitalism (Score:5, Informative)
This article makes the point why this is hypocritical:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-ford/ayn-rand-and-the-vip-dipe_b_792184.html
Ayn took the money after criticizing the programs and making the implication that people who took the money were weak. Self interest wasn't her only tenet.
Also, the other implication is that she took the money under a different name to avoid looking hypocritical. That may also be self interest but it also points to a failure to live up to her openly espoused philosophies. It would be interesting to find out how much money she had amassed during her lifetime and whether she had the option to *not* take the money and still be well off. I think that would be particularly hypocritical but I'm unsure of how she did financially.
Re:The One True RICH Ron Paul (Score:4, Informative)
Uh, no, it's not banned. The only thing it can't contain are the lungs (or lights), since they are extremely perishable.
Lungs are a no-no [deadlinenews.co.uk]
Haggis vendor 1 [scottishhaggis.com]
Haggis vendor 2 [scottishgourmetusa.com]
Haggis vendor we use for our Burn's Night [donovanscelticfoods.com]
Canned haggis (it's not bad, but it ain't traditional) [caledoniankitchen.com]
Lungless, low-fat haggis (ick!) [dailymail.co.uk]
Re:Welcome to Capitalism (Score:3, Informative)
From the article you linked to:
is registering, trafficking in, or using a domain name with bad faith intent to profit from the goodwill of a trademark belonging to someone else. The cybersquatter then offers to sell the domain to the person or company who owns a trademark contained within the name at an inflated price.
Um, yes, that is the defination of cybersquatting, according to the document that you linked to.
No - you're failing to parse the definition of terms such as bad faith and trademark.