this post was submitted on 06 Dec 2025
434 points (99.5% liked)

PC Gaming

12949 readers
530 users here now

For PC gaming news and discussion. PCGamingWiki

Rules:

  1. Be Respectful.
  2. No Spam or Porn.
  3. No Advertising.
  4. No Memes.
  5. No Tech Support.
  6. No questions about buying/building computers.
  7. No game suggestions, friend requests, surveys, or begging.
  8. No Let's Plays, streams, highlight reels/montages, random videos or shorts.
  9. No off-topic posts/comments, within reason.
  10. Use the original source, no clickbait titles, no duplicates. (Submissions should be from the original source if possible, unless from paywalled or non-english sources. If the title is clickbait or lacks context you may lightly edit the title.)

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] OpticalMoose@discuss.tchncs.de 118 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Their motivation is staying away from open platforms, and protecting their members' IP rights. Gotta thwart those pirates.

AMD is nearly 100x the size of Valve, and they couldn't get HDMI 2.1 approval on Linux. Nvidia somewhat has it with their proprietary drivers, but not nouveau.

[–] kbal@fedia.io 45 points 1 week ago (2 children)

They're not fucking with AMD and Valve just because they spontaneously developed an irrational hatred of partly-open platforms. Somebody has persuaded them that they have a financial incentive to do it.

[–] chaogomu@lemmy.world 64 points 1 week ago (2 children)

The movie studios. As the person above said, the HDMI consortium (owned by movie studios) is focused on protecting their members IP rights from pirates. HDMI has built in DRM, that could be removed from an open source driver.

[–] ozymandias@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 1 week ago (1 children)

so what you’re saying is we need to make hdmi driver patches to allow direct file saving from video streams?

[–] chaogomu@lemmy.world 11 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Well, one of the master keys leaked about 15 years back. A researcher posted a paper back in 2003 or so that outlined a method of finding a master key that was likely used by the people who made the release. It was a fun time to be on the internet, the people came together and said, yeah fuck those corpos and everyone reposted the key to every form of social media possible. I knew someone with the key tattooed on their arm (as part of their piracy themed artwork, I used to have pictures)

Now, that particular master key was patched out with a compatibility breaking upgrade, specifically 2.1 of the standard, which was proven to be broken in 2012, but there was less coming together to share it the second time, or the third for 2.2 of the standard.

But yes, if you wanted to code your own, you easily could. Just don't share it or the sue happy corpos will come knocking.

[–] sem@piefed.blahaj.zone 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)
[–] chaogomu@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago

Could have been...

Both were about the same timeframe.

[–] entwine@programming.dev 4 points 1 week ago

I haveb't looked into this particular group, but usually it's patents. Someone owns a patent for the tech required to implement the standard, and they "license" it out to anyone who wants to implement that standard. Obviously, they won't agree to terms that hurt their ability to collect rent on their patent. Qualcomm is famously guilty of this in the modem space.

Does that seem stupid, to adopt an industry standard that requires patented technology to implement? That's because it is, and were we a sane society we would invalidate any patents that become an industry standard, but we're a bunch of idiots with a billionaire cuck fetish.