Podcast (kinsella-on-liberty): Play in new window | Download (Duration: 28:30 — 26.1MB)
Kinsella on Liberty Podcast: Episode 016.
I appeared last night on Adam vs. the Man (episode 192) to discuss the Ron Paul v. Ronpaul.com dispute. Our segment goes from about 1:30:30 to about 1:54:30, which is excerpted here.
Excerpt:
Full show:
See also:
- Mike Masnick, Ron Paul, UN Hater, Asks UN To Take RonPaul.com Forcefully From Ron Paul’s Biggest Supporters, TechDirt
- Jeff Tucker and Stefan Molyneux, FreeDomainRadio (Feb. 11, 2013, Youtube, FDR episode 2327)
- Brad R, DOES RON PAUL OWN HIS NAME?, C4SIF
- Andrew Ian Dodge, Ron Paul Turns on Grassroots Supports Sites With Help of UN Organization, Huffington Post
- Nancy Scola, Ron Paul vs. RonPaul.com: How Coalitions Crack Up in the Internet Age, The Atlantic
Great interview, Stephan. Thank you for speaking out on this. You are, of course, 100% correct. Ron Paul should either put up the bucks or devise another domain name. Totally hypocritical and very disappointing.
Thank you, Stephan (and Adam).
You know, I just thought of something. See if you can spot an analogy within the following paraphrased dialog:
“Gives it to usssss.”
“Why?”
“Because we wants it. It is precious to ussss.”
Apparently, that’s all the reasoning anyone ever needs.
Me again, thread hog. Apparently (according to one of Wendy McElroy’s sources), WIPO rejected Ron Paul’s claim.
I have a question, Stephan. If someone trademarked the term “Ron Paul,” would that in any way give them a claim on the http string “ronpaul.com?” The differences seem obvious to me, but I’d bet that there’s some precedent out there somewhere. Perhaps the WIPO rejection of Ron Paul’s claim sets some kind of quasi-legal bureucratic precedent?
Ignorant and wondering…
Uh, “bureaucratic,” that is. Typing not good me at…