Hacker News

points by reactordev 2 days ago | 0 comments

https://open3dlab.com/project/04d18c1b-c508-4017-be7b-766904...

Straight up theft, not fan recreations, theft.

Indeed. And they're not even pretending to keep an arms-length distance from their users' infringement; they're openly promoting it,

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MidugiRfHaY ("Ripping Encrypted Unreal Engine Models" | Open3DLab)

(Found via a sidebar ad on their webpage).

[–] butlike 2 days ago

I have a question/thought/philosophy. If AES is a relatively strong encryption method right now, _why don't we wait to crack the assets until the encryption method is easy to decrypt_? By the time that's possible, the game assets will likely be old as shit, so it would potentially sit better with everyone. If we wait, it takes on a more archival type feeling.

[–] hobofan 2 days ago

Is your question "why don't decentralized humans appropriately self-regulate?"?

[–] numpad0 2 days ago

I understand importance of preservation, but frankly, the English WWW seem to massively and simultaneously overestimate rarity and undervalue financial costs of creative assets like 3D models and 2D images.

It's not rare that these assets cost in ranges of $10k and made in less than dozen man-hours each. They're not harvested and collected, but artificially created by individuals by work orders or as their own projects. A lot of these conversation feels like people are talking about something similar to Louvre collection items that cannot be obtained other than by somewhat illicit means, leading to discussions of which illicit means will be tolerated in the name of preservation.

No, it's something they make as we speak on Blender. Like with a mouse and a keyboard, or sometimes with a pen tablet. I think the anglosphere Internet hasn't yet reached the point where justification of dubious means can be discussed; we're at the phase where it should be educated to people more often that these are man-made creations that each has economic values.

[–] reactordev 2 days ago

I think you are missing the point here. The art assets in question belong to the studio. Yes, they are painstakingly made. They are made with the assistance of some very very expensive technologies. Full body scans. Facial rigging with 180 high fps cameras. Mocap suits and props in a full blown warehouse studio. The works. It's not just a 3D model. It's a rigged 3d digital twin of an actor. There's image rights, etc that have to be negotiated and deals made. Preservation would be to preserve the data as is rather than reworking it into a blender scene.

[–] greycol 2 days ago

Without getting into the much debated philosophy of restoration/display of preserved things and how restoration can often cause degradation to the original piece, consider that just preserving the data in the manner you suggest also requires preserving the original software if you ever want to view it. Which requires not just preserving that original software but also all the external hardware and software that original software relies on. Quite often that's a dead end as it requires preserving an activation/license server that the preservers don't have access to.

[–] reactordev 2 days ago

That isn’t true, you preserve the data as is for the software as is. You can emulate under it if you need to run it. This is what internet archive has done and the proper preservation of the media is in tact. In NO WAY do you ever need to convert the data back to a workable source in its original authoring program.

[–] greycol 1 day ago

You are wrong, you are basically saying "black cats exist therefore cats can't be tabby", there are plenty of preservation initiatives that preserve works in different forms when the original media can not be practically preserved or displayed. Yes best practice is to preserve as close to initial state as possible, that does not mean that when you cannot feasibly preserve the work in it's original state (with digital it's often due to drm) that you just say screw it nothing we can do but chuck it in the dustbin of history.

[–] numpad0 1 day ago

My point is about endemic lack of general understanding for these types of arts on English part of the Internet/WWW, no offense to GP intended. It feels like listening to museum curators discussing "oil on canvas" without ever having set foot on a store that have tubes of paints and canvases on the shelf and Apple Pay stickers at the cashier.

Without more widespread recognition about how these models, arts, games, etc., are artificially made by humans, and not magically discovered, I think discussions as to how they should be handled will be always a bit off, whichever way it would go. That's my point.

[–] DaSHacka 2 days ago

Because "we" want the assets now, and not when we're 60 years old?

[–] rideontime 2 days ago

Because "we" want the assets now?

[–] bdcravens 2 days ago

According to the timestamp, that was uploaded less than 24 hours ago.

I'm not familiar with their site; I assume it's user-uploaded? In that case, it's the same challenge that every user-generated content site has, balancing openness with policing IP violations.

[–] reactordev 2 days ago

their staff posts these things. their staff creates videos of how to rip assets from games. they are fully aware of what their users are doing and they openly encourage it.