Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
The Internet Republicans Your Rights Online

WIPO Panel Says Ron Paul Guilty of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking 303

Posted by timothy
from the take-a-man's-name dept.
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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

WIPO Panel Says Ron Paul Guilty of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking

Comments Filter:
  • may I lol? (Score:3, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 23, 2013 @04:41PM (#43807335)

    I may lol.

  • For free? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 23, 2013 @04:42PM (#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?

    • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 23, 2013 @04:45PM (#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? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by WillgasM (1646719) on Thursday May 23, 2013 @04:47PM (#43807391) Homepage
      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? (Score:5, Informative)

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 23, 2013 @04:49PM (#43807407)
        This.
        The .com wanted $250,000 [slashdot.org]
        • Re:For free? (Score:5, Insightful)

          by arth1 (260657) on Thursday May 23, 2013 @05:07PM (#43807553) Homepage Journal

          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? (Score:4, Insightful)

            by Synerg1y (2169962) on Thursday May 23, 2013 @05:21PM (#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.

            • 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.

              • by greg1104 (461138)

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

                But if you're Ron Paul, you already have a giant mailing list of supporters. It could easily be the case that the ronpaul.com mailing list doesn't have anyone who isn't already known to the campaign.

            • so... you really think the result would be the same if they had owned .com with the same (or better) appraisal? Or maybe if it was something like hillaryclinton.com?

              • sigh.. "owned (insert hollywood celebrity).com"

              • Re:For free? (Score:4, Insightful)

                by tbannist (230135) on Friday May 24, 2013 @08:24AM (#43811619)

                Clinton probably would have bought the domain and the mailing list. She's smart enough to know that starting legal proceedings against your own supporters is a generally a bad idea. The reasons this is news, is it's one of the most libertarian American politicians trying (and failing) to use the heavy boot of government to get around the free market.

                It's the betrayal of Ron Paul's professed core principles over the fairly trivial matter of a domain name that is the real news.

            • by TWiTfan (2887093)

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

              Gee, you think?

              All politicians are liars. Yes, *ALL* of them. That means your favorite too. They're just sociopaths who've learned to leverage their charisma to exert control.

          • Re:For free? (Score:4, Interesting)

            by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 23, 2013 @05:28PM (#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: (Score:3, Interesting)

              by geekprime (969454)

              "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

              • Re:For free? (Score:5, Insightful)

                by meglon (1001833) on Thursday May 23, 2013 @06:05PM (#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.
                • by khallow (566160)
                  I don't know why you got modded insightful. It's not that hard to look at the behavior of actual markets and get that they aren't unicorns and pixie dust. What makes domain names not a free market is WIPO.

                  Basically, there's a bunch of cybersquatters snarfing any domain names that they can get for cheap and then selling them for many orders of magnitude more than they got them for. Maybe it'd still go on. Scalping goes on in sporting events for much the same reasons. But at least scalpers don't enjoy a go
              • by whoever57 (658626)

                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.

                If I buy some land, build a house on it that I never intend to live in, I should give it away to the first person who wants to live in the house?

                What if I see that a city is developing in a certain direction and I make a gamble to buy up some farm land that I do not develop, should I give that up to the first developer who comes alo

            • Re:For free? (Score:5, Interesting)

              by FatLittleMonkey (1341387) on Thursday May 23, 2013 @06:45PM (#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: (Score:3, Insightful)

              by publiclurker (952615)
              i.e. How dare you do to me what I'm entitled to do to you! Typical spoiled brat libertarian attitude.
            • by Nyder (754090)

              "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.

              So you saying it's illegal to buy property with the intent of selling it to someone else for a profit? Really?

            • by tbannist (230135)

              Actually, "finder keepers" is pretty much one of the core principles of libertarianism (and the free market) and one of the major reasons why other groups despise libertarian ethics. To libertarians, it shouldn't matter whether property is unique or not. According to the stated principles of all major branches of libertarianism, it is unethical to take someone's property by force unless it was acquired through violence or fraud. It is the most important and fundamental belief that all of libertarian phil

          • by Todd Knarr (15451)

            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 (

      • by Bert64 (520050)

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

    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by Fluffeh (1273756)

      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? (Score:4, Informative)

      by diamondmagic (877411) on Thursday May 23, 2013 @05:23PM (#43807669) Homepage

      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: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by SteveFoerster (136027)

        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

        • 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.

          • How are the rules voluntary? If you have a domain name that you want to keep, and someone is trying to take it from you using this process, can you simply tell ICANN (spun off by the feds and still intertwined with them) and WIPO (part of the dreadful UN system) to go piss up a rope? No, of course not.

            As for being honorable, I didn't mean to say that Ron Paul is the antichrist here, and I certainly don't mean to minimize the many good things he's done. But this isn't one of them.

      • by whoever57 (658626)

        He is seeking to have ICANN enforce its own rules against cybersquatting, including the rule against registering a famous personâ(TM)s name and making money off it.

        You seem to have missed the part where the panel decided that the current owner had abided by the rules and that Ron Paul was the one guilty of rules violations.

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

    • by Dishevel (1105119)

      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?

      Because he is a nutbag.

    • by Shark (78448)

      When two people have a conflict and fail to reach an agreement on their own, they can either:

      1- give up (what he should have done)
      2- use physical force (illegal and against libertarian principles)
      3- seek arbitration (what he did)

      Arbitration ruled in favor of his opponent, which is a bummer to him. There is no force involved here, and no government. WIPO is merely the assigned arbitrator in international domain disputes. ICANN has authority over the .com and .org domains, their assigned mediator for such

  • My prediction (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Sarten-X (1102295) on Thursday May 23, 2013 @04:48PM (#43807401) Homepage

    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?

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

  • Good. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 23, 2013 @04:50PM (#43807421)

    He was being a hypocritical bastard.

    • by arth1 (260657)

      He was being a hypocritical bastard.

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

  • ...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.

    • by rjstanford (69735) on Thursday May 23, 2013 @05:00PM (#43807509) Homepage Journal

      ...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.

      • ...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"??

        • ...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: (Score:2, Insightful)

            by kqs (1038910)

            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%!

        • $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.

      • ...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 re

        • 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).

        • by symbolset (646467) * on Friday May 24, 2013 @04:11AM (#43810597) Journal

          This comment is off topic, and you may freely moderate it so.

          Once upon a time long ago I was intrigued by the rapid absorption of domain names and their escalating value. Particularly short names. And so I wrote a perl script to permute all possible 4-letter domains and look them up in the hope of identifying some interesting names to squat. I'm not really proud of that, but it was long ago when such stuff wasn't as abhorrent as the current day. I was sipping Maker's Mark on the rocks all night. I identified and registered a few, and one came up - iran.com, which could have been lucrative with the runner community. I was placing the order for the iran.com domain on Christmas eve when just then my wife came up, stroked my neck and said "come to bed." I got some. That was the most expensive nookie I ever got.

      • by stenvar (2789879)

        You see a conflict between his actions and his ideology because you have an incorrect notion of what "libertarianism" actually means. It doesn't mean "you should be able to do anything you can get away with to make a buck", it stands for the protection of individual liberties and free markets. Identifying products correctly (in this case, his political brand) is essential to free markets, so it is reasonable for him to try to get this resolved.

        More importantly, the DNS system itself isn't a free market syst

    • by arth1 (260657)

      ...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.

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

      So, in Libertopia someone who wants something gets to decree what makes an exchange offer unreasonable, and use some ruling body to force the other party to hand it over if they don't lower their price?

      Libertopia must be nice... if you're part of the in crowd that gets whatever you want. Too bad for everyone else.

  • by daniel.garcia.romero (2755603) on Thursday May 23, 2013 @04:58PM (#43807487)
    Free market will fix that! There's always www.ronpaul.bs or www.ronpaul.museum available.
    • Just don't register ronpaul.xxx (*shudder!*)

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

  • by Crosshair84 (2598247) on Thursday May 23, 2013 @05:00PM (#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.
    • by Waffle Iron (339739) on Thursday May 23, 2013 @05:14PM (#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.

      • 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).
        • 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.

      • 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" ?

      • "Threat of force?"

        I hear the WIPO has storm troopers now who bust down your door, slap you, then go back to the office and email ICANN, "Hey, transfer that domain to this other guy."

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by NeutronCowboy (896098)

      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.

      • by meglon (1001833)
        Duh.

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

    • 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

      • 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.

    • 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?

    • by nickmalthus (972450) on Thursday May 23, 2013 @05:38PM (#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.
    • by msauve (701917)

      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 Dom

    • it is looking that Dr, Paul may have a decent case for cybersquatting. We simply don't have enough information to be 100% sure.

      According to TFA, the fat lady has finished singing, the umpire has determined that RP was guilty of knowingly making false squatting accusations.

      Panama:
      Have you considered that Hary Alderson in Vermont would be a fool to legally entangle his personal assets (such as his house) with his very public political advocacy sites?

      Have you considered that registering a company (or two) in Panama might be the cheapest way to avoid the very real possibility of personal bankruptcy should the web sites be sued

  • by conspirator23 (207097) on Thursday May 23, 2013 @05:01PM (#43807517)
    So is cognitivedissonance.com. Both seem so much more... appropriate now.
  • Shouldn't taking someone's domain "by force" just be domain name hijacking?
  • An opponent of the Neocons got found guilty for something by the legal system put in place by the Neocons?? Who would have ever expected that.
  • Our domain name system is totally fucked. If I want to go to Ron Paul's website of course I will try RonPaul.com, and I certainly don't want to go to some scammer's website when I type in that address. The system is broken. We didn't build it to serve the interests of some millionaire scammers, so why are we tolerating this nonsense. Just because we don't like Ron Paul? This is insane.

    • I agree that it's broken[*], but you won't fix it by handing the domains over to the most influential people who demand them.

      [*] What if someone else named Ron Paul wanted the domain? Wouldn't he have as much claim to it as the famous Ron Paul does?

Chemist who falls in acid is absorbed in work.

Working...