Abusters lost the case and, in realizing that you can’t simply force another into business – that it, in fact, takes the mutual consent of both parties to make a contract valid – apparently now rejects the very concept, evident by one of the latest ABTV videos.

Titled Ad-idas, the 5-minute video documents Neil Boorman’s quest “to claim due advertising fees from a brand giant”.

The brand giant in question is Adidas and the “due advertising fees”? According to Boorman, it amounts to 10,000 pounds based upon – nothing consensual, of course, but rather – the 10-15 years Boorman has voluntarily spent being a “human billboard” for the company. You know, wearing Adidas shirts, shorts and shoes out in public.

Now obviously, Mr. Boorman isn’t a true Adidas fan. He isn’t a fan of any corporation. In the same vein as Naomi Klein, he’s a hardcore anti-consumerist borderline luddite; and in the same vein as Michael Moore, the video is dishonest in strategy but authentic in message. But yes, Boorman believes this garbage. As the tagline states, “Why do we buy clothes that advertise brands? They should be paying us!”.

Yeah!

Companies should be paying consumers who choose to buy their branded products for the subsequent advertising that the aforementioned companies never asked for. The consumers deserve it. It’s just!

Yes. In fact, tomorrow I’ll be sending Adbusters an invoice for showcasing the crappy Neil Boorman video in question.

Take a look. Or don’t! It doesn’t matter really. There isn’t a contract or any criteria whatsoever I have to meet. I don’t even have to speak highly of the content. I determine what they owe me. It’s that simple!

But that diatribe will have to wait as I’m limiting this post to their unsuccessful lawsuit, which–in ten words or less–was an attempt to force TV networks to air their advertisements. From Adbuster’s 3/3 press release:

On Monday, February 18, Adbusters lost its court battle against two of Canada’s television networks that refused to sell airtime for its commercials. Adbusters claimed the CBC and Canwest Global had violated its right to free speech under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms by refusing to sell air time, but the court decided that the Charter does not apply to private corporations.

The fact that Adbusters sued both a private and a public corporation makes the case not so cut and dry. For, it seems correct that there ought to be equal-access to entities that are government-funded–in this case the CBC (Canadian Broadcasting Corporation). But in press releases and other articles, Adbusters has largely ignored this element, focusing instead on the fact that their free speech “does not apply to private corporations”. Which leaves me to believe that the private sphere is their real target and CBC was thrown in there for strategic purposes.

Coming from imcWINNIPEG:

For over 10 years Adbusters has been trying to pay major commercial broadcasters to air its ads, only to be routinely blocked by network executives, usually with no reason given. This amounts to censorship and suppression of free speech, says Lasn.

“Lasn” is Adbusters’ Editor-in-Chief Kalle Lasn. He believes–as the quote demonstrates–that people have a right to free speech on other people’s private property, that (to frame it more generously) people have a right to demand purchase of another person’s product–in this case, advertising airtime.

…an understanding of private property and ownership that, if you ask me, makes the concepts completely meaningless. For, what good is private property if I am unable to qualify what activities occur and what activities do not, if any outsider can at any time come in and use it? What value does ownership have if at any time you can force me to make a sale?

Not much.

Now I’m not all that familiar with the world of broadcast licensing but, if I’ve correctly interpreted the situation–and let me know if I haven’t–the philosophical and moral principles of self-ownership seem completely applicable.

And that is that you do not have a right to my production, even if you pay for it. Even if you pay market value, even if you pay 10x the market value–you do not have a right to purchase product x. Who cares that you have the means to do so? I always retain the right. I determine whether or not I want to sell my property to you. Trade is always contingent upon my consent.

I mean, using Adbusters’ logic, McDonald’s has a right to buy advertising within the pages of the magazine. And if you’ve ever seen anything Adbusters has put out, you know they’d first buy something on Buy Nothing Day than allow that.

In any case, I’ve been looking for a reason to link to this audio for some time now: a 911 call on behalf of an unsatisfied Burger King customer. It’s a hilarious situation that includes the same I-have-a-right-to-purchase-your-product mentality, demonstrating the ridiculousness of such a philosophy.