Emmm... thought DMM is doing right, but a bit changed by your idea.
Yes, I think DMM should not punish the user. they should not be put in the situation that to identify the clone. They are not the expert. They should fight the source of clone - the factory they trained.
Maybe take a computer (dreambox is a computer) for instance, somebody cloned IBBM notebook, The user don't know and bought and maybe store very valuable data in it. But some day, IBBM release a time bomb to delete all his data. that will be a crime. (deleting of the bootloader results in all data lost)
maybe not good example, but start to understand what you are saying.
Yes, I think DMM should not punish the user. they should not be put in the situation that to identify the clone. They are not the expert. They should fight the source of clone - the factory they trained.
Maybe take a computer (dreambox is a computer) for instance, somebody cloned IBBM notebook, The user don't know and bought and maybe store very valuable data in it. But some day, IBBM release a time bomb to delete all his data. that will be a crime. (deleting of the bootloader results in all data lost)
maybe not good example, but start to understand what you are saying.
I don't think we are condoning cloned boxes, but DMM have not acted correctly ALL the software is covered under the GNU agreement, which ALLOWS the cloning companies to use it, they (the cloning companies) have done nothing wrong by using it. As to the hardware from what I have read is reference so also nothing wrong. In fact the only legal issue against some of the cloning companies is using the DMM name and that does not apply to them all.
Basically the cloning companies that do not use the DMM name, may be morally wrong but not legally.
DMM may be morally right in their reaction, but not legally.
Anyway thats how I see it, if I,m wrong please explain how.