FTC Town Hall to Address Digital Rights Management Technologies - Event Takes Place Wednesday, March 25, 2009, in Seattle
I purchased 1 year of television programming from Directv under a one year contract. Directv then used there DRM to take away the programming I paid for. The case was later known as Luaces V Directv miami 1998 where directv paid 11 million for that theft of services. Here was a clear case where DRM was used to take away the services (programming)consumers paid for. Worse, after that class action, Directv sued individual customers in federal court in 2003 stating that they had no right to protect there property (programming) by circumvention of the access card. I purchased an access card designed to stop that theft. While the customer purchases and owns the access card, they are not provided the right to circumvention even to stop a theft of property. Looking into this matter, our u.s. constitution provides the right to protect our property from theft. In my own federal court case, Directv has now taken from me, through confidential private agreement, the right to protect my programming by blocking there theft through circumvention. It is a direct violation of our constitution but I do not have enough money to fight them so I had to surrender my constitutional rights. Because I complained to federal agencies regarding my right to protect property and services I own versus directv's right to take my property via DRM, I have taken the only action I can. I was a victim of theft in this matter and the FTC and other federal agencies Directv's DRM right to engage in theft of consumer programming. Under such a system, I will now ignore justice the same as they have ignored me. The next time I am a Juror, I will ignore justice. The next time I am a witness, I will ignore justice. While repulsive, it is far worse for justice to ignore the rights of a crime victim on the bases of DRM then for a crime victim to ignore justice. This case establishes that a car manufacturer, refrigerator manufacturer, television manufacturer can take away the use of a product at anytime by simply pre-programming a switch to shut the product off. Then, as they did in my directv case, demand additional money to use there DRM to turn the product back on. It has been established that DRM can and has been used to unlawfully take property and services away from the owners. This position has been up held by courts and our own justice system now in spite of the fact it violates our constitutional protection to protect purchased properties and services contained in our own US constitution. .