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This discussion has been archived.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:
  • For free? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 23, 2013 @05:42PM (#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?

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

    by WillgasM (1646719) on Thursday May 23, 2013 @05:47PM (#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.
  • My prediction (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Sarten-X (1102295) on Thursday May 23, 2013 @05:48PM (#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?

  • Good. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 23, 2013 @05:50PM (#43807421)

    He was being a hypocritical bastard.

  • by rjstanford (69735) on Thursday May 23, 2013 @06:00PM (#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.

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

    by rahvin112 (446269) on Thursday May 23, 2013 @06:06PM (#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? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by rjstanford (69735) on Thursday May 23, 2013 @06:07PM (#43807549) Homepage Journal

    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.

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

    by arth1 (260657) on Thursday May 23, 2013 @06:07PM (#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.

  • by Waffle Iron (339739) on Thursday May 23, 2013 @06:14PM (#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.

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

    by Synerg1y (2169962) on Thursday May 23, 2013 @06:21PM (#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.

  • by NeutronCowboy (896098) on Thursday May 23, 2013 @06:21PM (#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.

  • by nickmalthus (972450) on Thursday May 23, 2013 @06:38PM (#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.
  • Re:For free? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by meglon (1001833) on Thursday May 23, 2013 @07:05PM (#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.
  • Re:For free? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by SteveFoerster (136027) <steve AT hiresteve DOT com> on Thursday May 23, 2013 @07:39PM (#43808119) Homepage

    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? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 23, 2013 @07:50PM (#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.

  • by kqs (1038910) on Thursday May 23, 2013 @08:05PM (#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:For free? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Black Parrot (19622) on Thursday May 23, 2013 @09:34PM (#43808673)

    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!

    Actually, for the most part, the "limited government" crowd just doesn't want anyone telling *them* what to do. This will be an outrage because the government is letting some nobody interfere with what his all-important self wants.

  • Re:For free? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by publiclurker (952615) on Thursday May 23, 2013 @09:49PM (#43808771)
    i.e. How dare you do to me what I'm entitled to do to you! Typical spoiled brat libertarian attitude.
  • Re:For free? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Zontar The Mindless (9002) <{moc.liamg} {ta} {ofni.hsifcitsalp}> on Friday May 24, 2013 @02:45AM (#43810081)

    Nice way to miss the point, which is: Paul hasn't done diddley-squat with any of the power already entrusted to him.

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

    by mcgrew (92797) * on Friday May 24, 2013 @08:32AM (#43811259) Homepage Journal

    And sabotaging the EPA, the FDA, and all the other regulatory agencies. Paul is old enough to know how filthy the air and water was before the EPA and how much more dangerous factories were before OSHA. As head of all these agencies he could have done a lot worse to the country than even Bush did.

    If you put someone in power who thinks government is always the problem you're going to have a shitty ineffective government. I'd like to see more politicians in office who would keep corporations on a short leash. I LIKE being able to breathe while driving past a Monsanto plant. It was impossible before the EPA.

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

    by TWiTfan (2887093) on Friday May 24, 2013 @08:42AM (#43811319)

    i think he would have been wildly more successful at doing things like ending the wars, closing Guantanamo,

    Yeah, it's too bad he doesn't have a son in Congress who could take up that fight. If he did, he could take on assholes like this [humblelibertarian.com], who want to keep Gitmo open and the war going.

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

    by tbannist (230135) on Friday May 24, 2013 @09:24AM (#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.

The sooner you fall behind, the more time you have to catch up.

Working...