About three months ago, Justin wrote about how he hated boycotts. And I agreed. Libertarians are fond of pointing out that boycotts and protests and social mores and other forms of non-coercive pressure are important, nuanced alternatives to the crushing thunk of government regulation. And I guess that’s true to an extent. My friend Jon made a similar point via email soon after my brief blog entry on the subject:
FWIW, I tend to like boycotts. They seem a wholesome bit of direct personal nonviolent action, and an antidote to the “force other people to change” mentality that pervades comfy consumer society. Of course it seems a little ridiculous to boycott French everything, and especially French-named things. Absurd, really. But I think the Dixie Chicks boycott is a beautiful thing. Some down-home girl from Texas goes abroad, feels the pressure of anti-Americanism, and weakly gives in. But then she wants there to be no consequences for such a stance among the people who firmly disagree with her. I think it’s perfect, and long overdue, given that most of Hollywood and musicians in general rarely take much heat for anything they say politically … I just wish someone would talk to the hordes of Tibet-lovers about the fact that Tibet isn’t the only occupied territory worth thinking about …
Maybe it’s just that I rankle at any notions of group-think, or maybe it’s the fact that I’ve long disassociated the art I enjoy from the politics and philosophies I espouse, but I’d never be able to bring myself to quit buying music I enjoyed because the musicians said something I didn’t like. (Not that I like Dixie Chicks music or pay any attention to their opinions — I’m just sayin’.)
But sometimes there are causes that I’m ready to join — voting with my dollars the way I never do with, well, my votes. Someone pointed out on Declan McCullough’s Politech list that Volvo of North America (the Ford-owned subsidiary of the Swedish car manufacturer) is trying to sic WIPO on a little car museum in Illinois because they have a similar domain name. Protection of corporate identity and all. Volvo of North America owns volvocars.com, and the Volo Car Museum owns volocars.com.
Pretty similar, right? The thing is, the Volo Car Museum has been in business for over 40 years, and its name derives from the town in which it’s located — Volo, Illinois. More importantly, the Volo Car Museum registered its domain name, volocars.com, in 1997
Volvo’s complaint against Volo has no merit. Zero merit. A complete, utter lack of merit. I’ve never been particularly interested in cars, but I hope Volvo’s bottom line takes a severe nosedive for this. And so, I will never buy a Volvo. Nor will this formerly satisfied Ford owner ever buy another Ford. Pass the word along, if you feel like indulging a new spate of group-think. It’s worthwhile this time.
I’ll leave you with some parting words by another subscriber to Declan’s fine list:
In a sane world, Volvo’s lawyers would end up disbarred and Volvo would end up hit with such a large countersuit judgment that it would have to liquidate to pay off even part of it.
In a sane world, every other lawyer involved in IP games would make a note to himself to never, *ever* try such a stunt.
In a sane world, the consequences for doing what Volvo is reported to have done would be *so* severe that law schools would teach budding lawyers to strictly avoid such nonsense.
