Notice: You have been identified as a bot, so no internal UID will be assigned to you. If you are a real person messing with your useragent, you should change it back to something normal.
Anonymous E joined in and replied with this 13 years ago, 1 minute later, 53 minutes after the original post[^][v]#407,382
@407,380 (TTEH !JXsxEkDBLs)
This is absolutely FANTASTIC!!! Just in time for our grandchildren!! THANK YOU SO MUCH!!
TTEH !JXsxEkDBLs replied with this 13 years ago, 3 minutes later, 57 minutes after the original post[^][v]#407,384
@previous (E)
I pity those grandchildren. I really, really do.
Meta !PARAdoxiHw joined in and replied with this 13 years ago, 46 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#407,401
@407,367 (B)
He didn't choose to go to the UN. He filed a complaint with ICANN (a non-profit, non governmental organization), which chose the WIPO (a UN agency) to arbitrate the dispute. Please actually look into the matter before calling Ron Paul "a little bitch". Thanks, thanx. Thanks.
Anonymous B replied with this 13 years ago, 5 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#407,405
@previous (Meta !PARAdoxiHw)
Its still part of the UN, and he knows that and still chooses to use them. Thanks.
Meta !PARAdoxiHw replied with this 13 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#407,406
@previous (B)
Ron Paul has no control over how ICANN arbitrates internet domain name disputes. He didn't "choose to use them". ICANN did.
beckyderp !CATLDyPIBQ replied with this 13 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#407,408
Anonymous B replied with this 13 years ago, 30 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#407,409
@407,406 (Meta !PARAdoxiHw)
He could have said, hey I wont work with them because they shouldn't even exist. Please pick someone else. or he could have used the free market economy and paid for the site.
Anonymous B double-posted this 13 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#407,414
Meta !PARAdoxiHw replied with this 13 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#407,415
@407,409 (B)
Okay, when you register a web site you must use ICANN to resolve disputes because ICANN controls domain name registration. There is no "pick someone else". It's ICANN's way or the highway. As for buying the domain name, should Ron Paul really have to pay $$$$ to use his own name?
beckyderp !CATLDyPIBQ replied with this 13 years ago, 36 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#407,416
Meta !PARAdoxiHw replied with this 13 years ago, 23 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#407,417
@407,414 (B)
Yes, WIPO is part of the UN. But ICANN is not. Thanks.
Anonymous B replied with this 13 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#407,420
@407,415 (Meta !PARAdoxiHw)
Thats how the free market works. They bought it first.
Meta !PARAdoxiHw replied with this 13 years ago, 2 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^][v]#407,425
@previous (B)
Cybersquatting is not "the free market" it's misrepresentation which is a form of fraud. Again, please research libertarian principles before making assumptions. Thanks, thanks.
kook !!32zdfdzi+ replied with this 13 years ago, 45 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^][v]#407,426
@previous (Meta !PARAdoxiHw)
How is it a form of fraud? they never claimed to be ron pauls official site.
kook !!32zdfdzi+ double-posted this 13 years ago, 1 minute later, 2 hours after the original post[^][v]#407,430
Meta !PARAdoxiHw replied with this 13 years ago, 2 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^][v]#407,431
@407,426 (kook !!32zdfdzi+)
But they are using his name. As a public figure, Ron Paul's name is his "brand" to a large extent. Even though they may be his fans, you will not find Ron Paul at RonPaul.com because someone else owns and operates it. If it was something like ronpaulfanclub.com it would not even be an issue. It would be like someone setting up barackobama.com and running it as a non official fan site. It would cause confusion and mislead people looking for Ron Paul.
kook !!32zdfdzi+ replied with this 13 years ago, 1 minute later, 2 hours after the original post[^][v]#407,432
@previous (Meta !PARAdoxiHw)
Please tell me about these libertarian principles regarding this specific issue, so that I may understand this.
beckyderp !CATLDyPIBQ replied with this 13 years ago, 3 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^][v]#407,434
@407,431 (Meta !PARAdoxiHw)
In intellectual property, they call this initial interest confusion. It's still exploiting the goodwill associated with the person's name which is considered to be his property. Even if once people do get to the site, and they would soon realize it's not what they were looking for - there's a misappropriation of his property.
(Edited 1 minute later.)
Meta !PARAdoxiHw replied with this 13 years ago, 4 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^][v]#407,439
@407,432 (kook !!32zdfdzi+)
It's quite simple. If your website is RonPaul.com, it should have Ron Paul or at least be endorsed by him. You have a right to what you create and Ron Paul's name, brand and image is something he had to work hard to create. He has a right to his name just like any other person or company. That doesn't mean you can't make a website about him. You could make ronpaulsucks.com or iloveronpaul.com since it's clear those aren't Ron Paul himself, just sites about him.
(Edited 40 seconds later.)
Meta !PARAdoxiHw double-posted this 13 years ago, 1 minute later, 2 hours after the original post[^][v]#407,441
@407,434 (beckyderp !CATLDyPIBQ)
This. A thousand times this.
kook !!32zdfdzi+ replied with this 13 years ago, 12 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^][v]#407,442
@407,439 (Meta !PARAdoxiHw)
Can you show me a source on how exactly this fits in with libertarianism?
TTEH !JXsxEkDBLs replied with this 13 years ago, 50 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^][v]#407,443
@407,439 (Meta !PARAdoxiHw)
I lol'd at how ronpaulsucks.com and iloveronpaul.com are both taken.
beckyderp !CATLDyPIBQ replied with this 13 years ago, 21 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^][v]#407,444
@407,442 (kook !!32zdfdzi+)
Libertarians are certainly very big on property rights. I don't think they're usually antagonistic to intellectual property, but I'm not sure, I don't follow those whackjobs at all.
Meta !PARAdoxiHw replied with this 13 years ago, 56 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^][v]#407,445
@407,442 (kook !!32zdfdzi+)
Sure. Can you show me a source for Ron Paul running to the UN like a little bitch?
kook !!32zdfdzi+ replied with this 13 years ago, 1 minute later, 2 hours after the original post[^][v]#407,448
@407,444 (beckyderp !CATLDyPIBQ)
But wait, you said that this fits in exactly with libertarianism and I would realize that with the proper info.
kook !!32zdfdzi+ double-posted this 13 years ago, 15 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^][v]#407,449
@407,444 (beckyderp !CATLDyPIBQ)
I thought that they were anti big government?
beckyderp !CATLDyPIBQ replied with this 13 years ago, 8 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^][v]#407,451
TTEH !JXsxEkDBLs replied with this 13 years ago, 3 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^][v]#407,455
@407,449 (kook !!32zdfdzi+)
They are, they just believe protecting property rights is a legitimate function of government.
kook !!32zdfdzi+ replied with this 13 years ago, 10 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^][v]#407,457
@407,451 (beckyderp !CATLDyPIBQ)
Sorry, meta did. Are libertarians anti big government, or am I thinking of something else?
kook !!32zdfdzi+ double-posted this 13 years ago, 33 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^][v]#407,458
@407,455 (TTEH !JXsxEkDBLs)
But how can you be anti big government, and then use big government?
Meta !PARAdoxiHw replied with this 13 years ago, 1 minute later, 2 hours after the original post[^][v]#407,460
@previous (kook !!32zdfdzi+) > But how can you be anti big government, and then use big government?
ICANN is not not not "big government". It's not government at all. We've been over this twice now.
kook !!32zdfdzi+ replied with this 13 years ago, 38 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^][v]#407,462
@previous (Meta !PARAdoxiHw)
I'm clearly not understanding! Please be patient with me.
beckyderp !CATLDyPIBQ replied with this 13 years ago, 5 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^][v]#407,473
@407,457 (kook !!32zdfdzi+)
No, you're right. But intellectual property rights aren't really big government, it's in the Constitution even. It's a pretty foundational thing and not part of some government overreach since it's really about protecting individuals' right to the things they produce.
Meta !PARAdoxiHw replied with this 13 years ago, 54 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^][v]#407,475
@407,462 (kook !!32zdfdzi+)
Okay. Registering domain names on the internet is controlled through a non-governmental agency called ICANN (Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers". To make a dispute about a domain name, you must go to ICANN and follow the Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP). ICANN has chosen to refer the case to WIPO. There is no "pick someone else", it's ICANN's way or the highway. Ron Paul did not "run crying to [the UN] like "a little bitch". He followed the dispute resolution process that you must agree to in order to register a .com
kook !!32zdfdzi+ replied with this 13 years ago, 26 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^][v]#407,477
@407,473 (beckyderp !CATLDyPIBQ)
I see. Thank you for being so patient. :)
Meta !PARAdoxiHw replied with this 13 years ago, 40 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^][v]#407,478
@407,473 (beckyderp !CATLDyPIBQ)
This. Ron Paul produced the brand and goodwill behind his name and he is entitled and required to protect it.
beckyderp !CATLDyPIBQ replied with this 13 years ago, 4 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^][v]#407,483
@previous (Meta !PARAdoxiHw)
Yeah, one of the interesting things about trademark law is that you can lose your rights to a trademark if you don't challenge its misuse. Sort of related, Google still sometimes complains about people using google as a generic verb, fearing loss of its trademark rights through genericide.
kook !!32zdfdzi+ replied with this 13 years ago, 9 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^][v]#407,497
Meta !PARAdoxiHw replied with this 13 years ago, 2 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^][v]#407,504
@previous (kook !!32zdfdzi+)
The UDRP is part of the contract you voluntarily sign to register a .com Libertarians are big on contracts and voluntary agreement. As for having to fight, if you don't fight for what's yours its seen as a sign of not caring in which case you lose your property rights.
kook !!32zdfdzi+ replied with this 13 years ago, 1 minute later, 2 hours after the original post[^][v]#407,510
@previous (Meta !PARAdoxiHw)
How long does that take to happen? Also thank you for explaining these things top me :)
Meta !PARAdoxiHw replied with this 13 years ago, 5 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^][v]#407,527
@previous (kook !!32zdfdzi+)
It depends. Anywhere from almost immediately to decades. Like if I asked someone to Xerox me a document then get me a Kleenex and Google this restaurant. They would still know what to do, even if the office had a Canon photocopier, generic facial tissues, and Bing as the default search engine on the computers. If this keeps up, trademarks like Kleenex could lose their value (their value being that they differentiate Kleenexâ„¢ from all other facial tissues).
Or, if I asked someone to Canon me a document, or Ricoh me a document I would get a blank stare even though Canon and Ricoh are huge players in the copier business.
(Edited 3 minutes later.)
kook !!32zdfdzi+ replied with this 13 years ago, 2 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^][v]#407,530
@previous (Meta !PARAdoxiHw)
I dont understand this. How can there be so much difference in the time period for a lawsuit?
Meta !PARAdoxiHw replied with this 13 years ago, 9 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^][v]#407,549
@previous (kook !!32zdfdzi+)
There's no hard limit as far as I know but it's a good idea to move quickly if someone tries to dilute your trademark. For one interesting case, check out nissan.com You would expect a site for the Nissan car company but Mr. Uzi Nissan, an Israeli-American registered nissan.com in 1994 for his computer business called Nissan Computer Corporation, which was founded when Nissan Motors was still called Datsun.
This was interesting because Mr. Nissan had a documented history of using the name, his surname, for decades even before Nissan Motors was called Nissan. He got to keep the domain name because of that. Check out http://www.digest.com/Big_Story.php for the whole story.
(Edited 32 seconds later.)
Anonymous G joined in and replied with this 13 years ago, 4 hours later, 7 hours after the original post[^][v]#407,593
Also, a person claiming a trademark on their own name is apparently somewhat shaky legal territory, as some authors have found out in the past. This was brought up the last time Ron Paul tried to sue his fans over a YouTube video.
(Edited 38 seconds later.)
Meta !PARAdoxiHw replied with this 13 years ago, 22 minutes later, 7 hours after the original post[^][v]#407,603
@previous (G) > > There is no "pick someone else" > Yes, there is. UDRP complaints are submitted to an approved dispute-resolution service provider. He could have opted for another provider.
Like what? The The Czech Arbitration Court Arbitration Center for Internet Disputes? Or the Asian Domain Name Dispute Resolution Centre?
According to Paul's spokesman:
The World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) is serving here merely as an approved dispute resolution service provider in this private arbitration. The use of WIPO was necessitated because the current domain name owners used an Australian registrar to acquire the domain name. The current RonPaul.com domain name holders subjected themselves to this proceeding in this forum when they registered RonPaul.com with an Australian registrar.
> A minichan Curriculum. Uncritically repeat memes!
Anonymous G replied with this 13 years ago, 10 minutes later, 7 hours after the original post[^][v]#407,619
@407,603 (Meta !PARAdoxiHw)
What about the one you didn't name? Is there a reason he couldn't use National Arbitration Forum?
Anonymous H replied with this 13 years ago, 2 minutes later, 7 hours after the original post[^][v]#407,621
@407,444 (beckyderp !CATLDyPIBQ)
Anti-IP is quickly becoming the Rothbardian/Hoppeian (i.e. non-Randian) libertarian norm. This work, possibly just because of timing (the internet and 3D printing), generated a lot of interest in what was a fringe subject of little interest to most people. It is not a particularly long work, and it is highly topical (Megaupload, SOPA, PIPA, Pirate Party, are all big news items concerning IP). I encourage you to read it so that at the very least you know about this perspective on the topic, even if you disagree.
Anonymous H double-posted this 13 years ago, 4 minutes later, 8 hours after the original post[^][v]#407,622
@407,619 (G) > National
Because it's an international dispute.
Anonymous G replied with this 13 years ago, 10 minutes later, 8 hours after the original post[^][v]#407,625
@previous (H)
According to Ron Paul's spokesman, this is a private arbitration and not a matter of international law. He could have picked anyone (who ICANN also agreed was eligible) who agreed to arbitrate. Why couldn't he have picked someone else?
(Edited 1 minute later.)
Anonymous H replied with this 13 years ago, 6 minutes later, 8 hours after the original post[^][v]#407,629
@previous (G)
please reread this thread... the answers are already here...
Anonymous G replied with this 13 years ago, 1 minute later, 8 hours after the original post[^][v]#407,631
@previous (H)
I'm not seeing them. Humor me and point them out.
Anonymous G double-posted this 13 years ago, 20 minutes later, 8 hours after the original post[^][v]#407,635
@407,629 (H)
Well okay, I'll go ahead and point out why you are wrong.
From the National Arbitration Forum's authorization FAQ: > The National Arbitration Forum (FORUM) is a national and international administrator of alternative dispute resolution services including domain name dispute resolution.
Please explain why a private contract dispute would require the UN.
(Edited 6 minutes later.)
Meta !PARAdoxiHw replied with this 13 years ago, 46 minutes later, 9 hours after the original post[^][v]#407,638
@407,619 (G)
Did you read part I emphasized? It's an international dispute. Thanks.
Anonymous G replied with this 13 years ago, 2 minutes later, 9 hours after the original post[^][v]#407,639
Meta !PARAdoxiHw replied with this 13 years ago, 1 minute later, 9 hours after the original post[^][v]#407,640
@previous (G)
Is it possible they didn't want to take this case? Or perhaps WIPO was specified as the arbitrator to be used in the contract the for the Australian registrar of ronpaul.com?
(Edited 1 minute later.)
Anonymous G replied with this 13 years ago, 16 minutes later, 9 hours after the original post[^][v]#407,641
@previous (Meta !PARAdoxiHw) > they don't work in every single country
It is a private contract dispute.
PICK ONE: Either it is a private contract dispute or it isn't. You can't say it is a matter of international law while citing Ron Paul's spokesman as saying otherwise.
Yes. They could have have picked someone else to arbitrate over a .com TLD. In order for the UDRP to go through under WIPO, they only have to show that they have a 'common law trademark'. (which they can probably show) That is probably the reason they picked WIPO. They may not have a chance if they have to rely on proving that they have a trademark under US law because their case relies on establishing a trademark based on Ron Paul publishing books under that name.
beckyderp !CATLDyPIBQ replied with this 13 years ago, 3 hours later, 12 hours after the original post[^][v]#407,655
Mountainman !4EB6xd.Oos replied with this 13 years ago, 1 hour later, 18 hours after the original post[^][v]#407,684
@previous (Mountainman !CATLDyPIBQ)
Cease this deception. I am MM.
Mountainman !!Zb/x116hj replied with this 13 years ago, 13 minutes later, 18 hours after the original post[^][v]#407,698
@previous (Mountainman !4EB6xd.Oos) @407,681 (Mountainman !CATLDyPIBQ)
False dichotomy. I am the real mountainman. I have the Ron Paul DNA samples and police records to prove it.
Anonymous G replied with this 13 years ago, 2 hours later, 20 hours after the original post[^][v]#407,713
@407,655 (beckyderp !CATLDyPIBQ)
International contract disputes do happen all the time, and private arbitration is a common method of settling these disputes. The problem is that the Ron Paul camp maintains that this is a private contract dispute while suggesting that WIPO's authority is somehow necessary.
@407,656 (I)
There's a cat grooming joke in there somewhere...
beckyderp !8ElfFaoFao replied with this 13 years ago, 3 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#407,747
@previous (G)
Okay, I don't have time to understand all this shit. You win!