But they may also host unwanted or even malicious software, firmware, or hardware—and the buyer may not know the difference, or even know what to look for.
Alternatively, the clones are often the ones which will omit the user-hostile DRM and such. Thus you get HDMI splitters which don't actually re-encrypt HDCP, DVD players which don't implement region restrictions or the "unskippable" bits (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_operation_prohibition ) , Androids with unlocked bootloaders by default, etc.
Of course, to an organisation like the IEEE, who have always appeared to be pro-DRM, pro-IP, pro-copyright, that would probably be considered "malicious"...
The whole safety/security argument, while true, I think is somewhat overblown and these days increasingly used to justify an authoritarian agenda.
I think the IEEE is just ethical. Faithfully build the thing you're paid to build. It's probably not fair to call the encryption free splitter an HDMI splitter. If you build it, call it something else so you don't dilute the standard.
Of course, i don't have a lot of experience with IEEE, they may actually be super pro-DRM, and my opinion could be swayed.
> I think the IEEE is just ethical. Faithfully build the thing you're paid to build.
The important questions in business ethics are not whether you faithfully build the thing you're paid to build or build it unfaithfully, but whether that thing ought to be built at all.
DRM and DRM circumvention tools can fall on both sides of that divide, it's not an easy question.
Alternatively, the clones are often the ones which will omit the user-hostile DRM and such. Thus you get HDMI splitters which don't actually re-encrypt HDCP, DVD players which don't implement region restrictions or the "unskippable" bits (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_operation_prohibition ) , Androids with unlocked bootloaders by default, etc.
Of course, to an organisation like the IEEE, who have always appeared to be pro-DRM, pro-IP, pro-copyright, that would probably be considered "malicious"...
The whole safety/security argument, while true, I think is somewhat overblown and these days increasingly used to justify an authoritarian agenda.