I think that it is free market price, after all he is looking to buy, not them looking to sell. Thus sellers market. Also, it's not like the site was being used to defame him or anything so that kind of voids any blackmail argument...
I'm sure there'd be a large amount of people who would consider $250,000 is pocket change that allows them to sledge Ron Paul using his own name.
Are people really trying to claim that having a monopoly on internet names is a free market because you can buy and sell names? Are we now going to claim that carbon credits are a free market also because you can trade them after the government sets prices, distribution, and rules? Are people really trying to claim that filing a grievance under the rules that the monopoly organisation have set up is hypocritical just because you do not want the parent organisation (the UN) to interfere with American sovereignty? Can anyone explain how a line in a hosts file is property? Looks like you don't know what a strawman is, and you refuse to even acknowledge the fault with your flawed reasoning. Now you are choosing to make up a narrative of your own? Have you actually read the filing? Once again, selling a commodity issued by a government-protected monopoly seller for a price doesn't; suddenly make it a free market. Are you really that confused about this? Just stating it how it is, but your apparent lust for the tears of a stranger over the internet, and the overall attitude you are taking, seems to smell of problems with your mental health. Are you really trying to distort an issue in order to cause misery to strangers on the internet?
That's an interesting question. Of course the reality is that all the DNS servers together determine which server/s a particular domain name is mapped to. Having a consensus is useful (necessary?) to internet users so that people and businesses can advertise said name and people will be directed to their site every time. How would it work without said names being property in a certain respect? Someone pays money so that the name maps to their server. And why would a person have the right to own their own name? After all, he is not the only Ron Paul out there, why would he have exclusive access to that name? Disclaimer: I believe intellectual property as a concept is completely bogus.
True free markets don't exist in the real world. It is why I always use 'free market' (quotations) where possible. The aspect of information asymmetry and barriers of entry and regulation all play a part in the world of not having a free market. However, carbon credits are completely different to domain names as they are homogenous and have a limited trading environment. Domain names are more like land where the Australian government 'owns' all the Australian land but people are still free to buy/sell land at 'market' prices. The simple fact is, there was a buyer and there was a seller. They could not agree to the price. The buyer goes and cries foul to the UN. For someone that states they support the free market ideology this is extremely hypocritical and if you cannot see why you should take off your fanboy tinted glasses and take a look. To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by replacing it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the "straw man"), and to refute it, without ever having actually refuted the original position. Your proposition of loud music at night is basically a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition. I refuted by stating Ron Paul is not being harassed by having a domain name with his name used. Maybe you should learn to read? I know it's hard to read but maybe you should try it some time. I find it hilarious when people get all flustered and defensive when their Dear Leader is being 'attacked'. Guess people like you literally can't handle the truth. Reminds me of YKY back in the old days. I ain't distorting nothing. If my posts have caused you grief and misery maybe you should consult a psychiatrist.
Intellectual property should be protected at all costs so i disagree completely . Some spend millions on R&D to develop something & need the property rights to get a return on their investment .. Im talking individuals here .why would anyone spend vast amounts of money if they couldnt get a return on it . So the patents laws should go aswell ? because thats the only thing its good for .
+1 The "rights" to intellectual property are just another exercise in state power. The patent system is likewise a croc of shite, state power selectively exercised in one parties interest to the detriment of another.
This is the argument used in the supposed "free trade" agreement that had US pharmaceutical companies trying to dismantle the Pharmaceuticals benefits scheme here in Australia along with the availability of generic drugs.
You don't know what a free market is. Information asymmetry has nothing to do with weather a free market exists or not. Keep trying though! Yes, two intangible commodities created by monopoly organisations and traded via rule of committee are two completely different things! And somehow, one is limited, and one is unlimited... according to you. Amazing! So your argument is this: Because Ron Paul doesn't want the UN to intrude on US sovereignty, he is then logically forbidden from filing dispute via the ICANN domain dispute process which ronpaul.com agreed to, and that is administered by an organisation who's parent organisation is the UN? And then somehow, when I ask that if someone dislikes government, yet they use a government resolution process to deal with rowdy neighbours, that is a strawman? Wow. It's dishonest to say that he is "going to the UN". When the owner of RonPaul.com bought the domain, he VOLUNTARILY agreed that if there is any dispute regarding the domain, that resolution would be handled by ICANN's nominated resolution procedure. Ron Paul is filing a dispute, as per the rules, that the owner of RonPaul.com agreed to.... and to repeat again, because Ron Paul doesn't like the UN, he is not allowed to have a dispute over a domain name? Maybe a dick move on Paul's behalf, but certainly not hypocritical. So someone who believes in markets isn't allowed to file disputes under rules which have been set for having disputes? Is that your argument? You are starting to sound pretty absurd my friend. I do have a bit of grief, but it's more to do with the realisation that people like you either honestly or dishonestly distort a narrative, and then use wrong-headed logic with made up facts (a free market = equal information? LOL) to keep arguing. Is there any hope for the human race? hahaha. If you insist!
Easy to say if your not the one spending the money on developing something . What incentive is there to spend if as soon as your finished every one can make it & profit from it .. If it wasnt for the patents & intellectual property there wouldnt be half the drugs available that we have & need . The system is the driver of these things not for a good feeling inside .
Intellectual property, for a start, is completely arbitrary. Who's to say whether it should be 2 years, 5 years, 50 years or whatever. On what metric do you base the time limit? To say things won't be produced is ridiculous. Example, Coke was first to market with Cola. Are we to believe that they wouldn't make the necessary profits to recoup their investment? Because I think they still make a ton of money even though they have competitors in the arena. R&D costs are not as onerous as they are made out to be.
Things will be produced obviously but the rate at which new drugs & thinngs would be limited due to the lack of incentive to spend money @ Austacker ...Exactly theres 100 brands of cola that all taste the same it wouldnt matter which one you bought so 99% less profit . Although im not really talking about a soft drink recipe im more about the medicinal research ,micro/nano technology , new machinery ,.people just jumping in at the end after the hard work has been done would mean the big multinationals would own most things because they have the money to manufacture it first & bring it into production Hawkeye is always against the big business now he wants to give them free reign & not have to pay the person who invented or developed it .. ferk.....
The greatest motivator for scientists is science, not money. Did Einstein come up with his theories of relativity to get rich? There is also money in the treatment of illness, but not in the cure. It seems that most of the money these days is spent actually getting new treatments passed the regulators, and this seems to be a corrupt and broken process. So sure, maybe we do need to allow companies to get guaranteed revenue in order to pay for their costs, but since a lot of the cost is government, we are asking for more government to deal with the problems created by government. Drugs are certainly one discussion, but if you want to see insanity in IP, take a look at software patients.
are you retarded?? So these are your poster boys for "self interest"?? You sound like a typical statist/socialist retard!
I think you are misusing the term 'free market' here. This really has nothing to do with free market. Its an example someone making money off another person's 'brand' or hard work. Thats not really fair, the only reason RonPaul.com is anything is because of Ron Paul, and none of the owners have the right to make a profit off Ron Paul without Ron Paul getting a cut or being paid royalties. Its a copywrite issue. My fav band Megadeth spell their name the way they do because an ex friend went and took out a copy write on 'Megadeath' and said it will cost $10,000 to buy it back. Its a low life example of merchadising what you dont own, a dishonest business practices.
I am very protective of my information, anytime I get mail addressed to me from an electricity company (or whatever) that I have had no dealings with, I call them and ask where did they get my information. Usually they direct me to their information brockers, who I call and ask to be fully deleated from their lists. I suspect my name, email and adress is being harvested from my ebay purchases and being sold. The only person who has the right to profit from my personal information is me, and whomever I give permission. I would sue the pants off em if I could! I hate it!
Actually it's a trademark issue. Intellectual property can be broadly broken up into four distinct areas: copyrights, patents, trademarks and trade secrets. All of those areas cover different aspects of how intangible stuff is afforded legal protection. Names generally can't be copyrighted but they can be protected as a trademark of an individual or a company. That's why you see the little (unregistered trademark) and (registered trademark) after names and logos.
While intellectual property has a lot of problems, there is one benefit to it: Patent holders are required to give a full public disclosure of how their invention / formula etc is made. The payback for the full disclosure is enforceable protection of said invention for a period of time (not automatic protection). After which, the knowledge is free to use by society at large. If this protection didn't exist, then everything would be kept secret. Competitors would plunk down money on research to copy an industry leading invention. In the aggregate, society would probably waste more resources duplicating research and development that could be used for other things.
