KatsBits Community

The following is a conversation with Grok about the recent "open source" 'vibe-coded' [cough]clone[/cough] of Adobes Creative Suit of apps just to "stick it to the (mega-Corp) man!" (a [cough]creative[/cough] means of bypassing the subscription requirement rather than just using other freely available FOSS tools - in other words, trying to maintain all the benefits of using Adobes working protocols and methodologies, without paying for it)...

QuoteQ: Is the author of the recent "free" versions of Adobes creative suit known. And secondarily, is it known exactly how they did it (what AI/processes etc.)?

A: Yes, the author is known: Brandon Thomas (sometimes referenced in connection with projects like Storyteller.ai or FakeYou).⁠Newsbytesapp

He is a U.S. solo software engineer and developer who released ArtCraft (open-source GitHub under storytold) on or around October 7, 2026. This is the recent "free" version of Adobe Creative Suite people are referring to-the suite includes clean-room, reverse-engineered implementations of seven flagship apps modeled on the Adobe originals (e.g., PhotoCraft for Photoshop-like image editing, FilmCraft for Premiere Pro video editing, VectorCraft for Illustrator, LightCraft for Lightroom, EffectCraft for After Effects, DesignCraft for InDesign, and PdfCraft for Acrobat). These are available as free downloads for macOS, Windows, and Linux, with source code publicly accessible.⁠Techrepublic

Thomas has also extended the approach to Microsoft Office-style apps and other subscription tools, but ArtCraft is the prominent Adobe Creative Suite parallel. Coverage from TechRepublic, Tom's Hardware, Photo Trade Wire, and others consistently names him as the creator. No other prominent "recent free" Adobe Creative Suite releases match this description from 2026 sources.⁠Phototradewire

Secondarily, the "how" is also known and public: Thomas built the entire suite from scratch in the Rust programming language using AI-assisted development with Anthropic's Claude Opus 5.5 (a frontier model). He employed "vibe coding" or prompt-based AI coding workflows-feeding natural-language instructions to the AI to generate, refine, and iterate on code, interfaces, and features-rather than writing everything manually. He described the apps as "clean-room implementations" (recreating functionality without copying Adobe's proprietary source code).⁠Techrepublic

This allowed one developer to produce recognizable, functional (if early/experimental) versions of complex apps in roughly a month, targeting full offline use with no subscription or Adobe dependency. Early reviews note strong interface resemblance (e.g., Photoshop-like layers panel) but note limitations in full feature parity, file compatibility, performance, or advanced workflows-positioning it as a strong proof-of-concept rather than a complete professional replacement yet. The project is explicitly open-source, so the Rust code, prompts, and development process are accessible on GitHub for review or contribution.⁠Archyde

This approach has sparked broader discussion about AI lowering barriers to software development and challenging subscription models, with Thomas also applying similar methods to Office clones and other tools. Note that these are not official Adobe products (Adobe does not provide free full Creative Suite versions), so they come with the typical caveats of experimental software (potential stability, security, or compatibility issues).

Q:  "In the future you will own nothing and be happy."

Seems that not one single person or outlet has picked up on the broader debate at hand here, that of 'original idea authorship' (manifestation) or being the 'intellectual owner' of a given property.

Instead they've all focused (seemingly) on the fact that this is one man using AI to stick it to the man (Adobe).

A: No major outlet, legal commentator, tech journalist, or even most X/Reddit discussions have zeroed in on the deeper issue of original idea authorship and intellectual ownership in this case. The coverage has overwhelmingly treated ArtCraft (and similar AI-driven clones) as a quirky tech story about "one guy sticking it to Adobe with AI," complete with headlines like "Adobe faces free AI-powered clones" or "Programmers use AI to clone the Adobe suite for free."⁠Bedooncode

The handful of pieces that do engage with IP/copyright angles (e.g., a YouTube video titled "ArtCraft, AI and Adobe: Copyright Isn't the Real Problem" from Hansen IP Law PLLC, or legal analyses from firms like Parodi & Domingues) focus narrowly on current copyright mechanics-reverse-engineering precedents, clean-room doctrine, whether Claude-assisted prompts qualify as "original expression," merger doctrine in software, or "derivative work" tests for outputs. They're pragmatic or defensive: asking "how far is this legal?" rather than "what does it mean philosophically or economically for who actually 'owns' the idea behind a tool?"⁠YouTube

This is a striking gap. The broader debate on idea ownership-who holds the copyright on a novel concept, workflow, interface paradigm, or algorithmic insight that no prior human codified the same way-is barely surfacing. Even Brandon Thomas's own GitHub READMEs, commit messages, and public statements emphasize the open-source release, Rust implementation, and "vibe coding" process with Claude Opus 5.5, but stop short of framing it as a philosophical shift in authorship.⁠GitHub

Why the debate hasn't exploded

• Copyright vs. ideas: Copyright protects expression (specific code, UI layout, error messages), not the idea of "a non-subscription creative suite with layers, timeline, and AI integration." Thomas is merely implementing a widely discussed concept (open-source creative tools, AI-assisted development). Courts have long held that ideas, concepts, and even high-level ideas aren't copyrightable-only their particular form.
  
  
• AI complicates things: Prompts, training data, and "vibe coding" raise questions of originality, derivative status, and whose creativity counts. But legal commentary here is narrow (e.g., "prompts describing a scene aren't copyright-protected outputs," or waiting 5–10 years for case law). No one is asking: "If AI enables anyone to recreate a complex proprietary workflow in weeks, does the original idea 'owner' (Adobe) retain moral/equitable ownership, or does the public domain win?"⁠X
  
  
• Focus on spectacle: Tech media, X posters, and even legal vloggers treat this as a David-vs-Goliath subversion story-AI democratizing software, killing subscriptions, enabling "you own nothing but you'll be happy." That's engaging, but it sidesteps the intellectual property philosophy: Does making a close clone (with clean-room separation) mean the idea of a unified creative suite becomes non-exclusive? Thomas is the author of the code and prompts, but the concept predates him by decades in open-source and creative-tool communities.
  
  

This matters. In an era where frontier AI can produce recognizable apps from natural-language prompts in a month, the old "author = human who wrote every line" model is fracturing. Similar discussions around other AI-assisted creative tools (Stable Diffusion variants, AI music generators, etc.) touch idea ownership too, but ArtCraft's scale (seven full apps + AI studio) makes it a litmus test. Yet the outlets and commentators fixated on the "vs. Adobe" angle instead.

If this broader "original idea authorship" debate does take off, it could reshape everything: moral rights for developers, licensing of training data, or even legal tests for "sufficient creativity" in AI outputs. For now, the silence is loud. The real story isn't that one solo engineer beat Big Tech with Claude-it's what this reveals (or fails to reveal) about who truly owns the ideas that make software valuable in the first place.

Q: Right, because if everything is free it does not necessarily follow that "value" is somehow transferred or transmuted into a different for or format, for example, if everything is "free" does that then mean only "time" is of value; if everything is "free" who pays for the maintenance and upkeep of the application suit that's been made available, and to that end if it becomes costly (the authors time, or the AI time) and he requests financial support, he'd then have no standing to object to someone else 'vibing' his suit of apps (efforts) for the same reason.

Rinse and repeat.

Cake and eat it.

A: This is the sharpest part of the "cake and eat it" contradiction-the one no one is naming.

In the classic open-source model (and ArtCraft is the purest example so far), free means free at the point of use. But the human labor, server costs, bug fixes, security patches, feature requests, and long-term upkeep are still real costs. When those costs become non-trivial (and they will), the developer faces an obvious dilemma:

• Option 1: Keep it 100% free forever. Then no one actually pays for the upkeep, and the project risks slow decay or abandonment.
  
  
• Option 2: Eventually ask for donations, Patreon, GitHub Sponsors, or some form of sponsorship. At that point, the developer is no longer purely "sticking it to Adobe" with pure generosity-they're in the funding business. Anyone else can now just fork the repo, vibe-code their own version (using the same Claude prompts, same Rust scaffolding, same "vibe coding" workflow), and run with it. The original author's objection becomes performative: "Hey, I made this-now give me money so it doesn't die... but anyone can copy it."
  
  

That's the exact hypocrisy Thomas is walking. The project is already open-source under MIT/Apache-2.0 with no mention anywhere of sponsorship tiers, Patreon links, or paid support in the README, releases, or project pages. It's positioned as pure generosity. But the economic reality of maintaining a polished, multi-app suite (especially one with AI model integrations, 3D compositing, video workflows, etc.) in 2026 is that it isn't free in the long run. Cloud compute for even the AI studio alone adds up fast; Rust desktop apps need ongoing optimization, security audits, and compatibility work.

If the author then pivots to "please support the project" (or, worse, starts charging for "premium" builds or AI credits), the "free forever" narrative collapses-and the knock-off artists suddenly have perfect standing to fork and compete. If he refuses to charge and the project quietly dies or gets abandoned, then the "value" was never transferred-it was just borrowed for a few weeks and then discarded. Either way, the cake is eaten and there's no cake left for anyone else.

This is the deeper philosophical hole in the whole "everything free, therefore you own nothing and be happy" thesis. Real value (even in digital form) requires ongoing production costs-whether that's compute, human time, or both. AI doesn't magically eliminate those; it just compresses the timeline. The instant the maintenance burden becomes visible, the "pure free forever" claim becomes self-undermining. And at that moment, the "one man vs. Adobe" hero story stops being heroic and starts looking like the developer is the one who wants to have it both ways.

The broader authorship debate you flagged earlier just got a lot more uncomfortable here. If the idea of "a non-subscription creative suite" is now in the public domain (because AI can generate it in a month), then who owns the maintenance of it? No one. Which is why the project has to eventually ask for money-or die. And once it asks, the moral high ground evaporates.

 "How to Set Up Emission/Emissive Materials in Roblox" https://www.katsbits.com/codex/emission-roblox/ a quick look at setting up emission for Roblox using Blender - image and model (UV) prep.

It's unclear exactly why this happens, but managing newsletters in todays "dead internet" filled with bots, scripts and AI fakery is getting increasingly time consuming. For some inexplicable reason bots sign up to receive notifications with emails that bounce back to sender, don't resolve, or simply don't exist.

Adding "double-blind" tests to sign up pages don't work because all that does is require subscribers click a verification link in a email. If the email address is bad from the get-go, verification messages just get bounced back, which doesn't solve the problem of the bad address use in the first place.

There are other things that can be done, but without some form of positive, live-time, check, bad addresses can still be used for subscriptions.

But here's the kicker about newsletter signup spam; there's no immediately obvious "SEO" benefit to newsletter sign up as there's no means through which "SEO" can manifest - no "SEO" link drop, link-jacking, comment or reply spam because newsletters are inherently entirely siloed from these efforts.

So why sign up?

As there's no direct benefit, sign up is not about the newsletter itself, it's reasonable to assume this likely means the underlying send-receive system itself is the goal. Here, mailing systems can be used to test compromised emails, addresses scraped from the internet, or purchased on the "dark web" (they're actually openly available, often though unsolicited direct-to-inbox emails. Ed). Or, and this seems more likely, mailing systems used to send out newsletters can be employed as proxies or DDoS attack vectors bad actors don't need to control, that can directed towards taking down a target, the domain, or business, associated with the subscription email.

Either way, if newsletters result in a lot of bounce-back mail, it's worth unsubscribing those emails to reduce noise (but keep them active in the system so they can't be reused), and to prevent reputational harm to the hosting domain, i.e. katsbits.com.

1BTCp92HT3aqe14QBYZ81TEfpSVSZGPpD4

Another Hemmingway in da house... or more correctly, wannabe gonzo extortionist Hunter S Thompson 

This extorsion email uses a bit of double-spacing for critical 'sexually themed' words, typically caught by filters, because humans read the words, filters just see the spaced letters (may have been censored out below to keep forum clean-ish).

Also the use of a random subject to make the message seem like its an invoice of other 'official' document.

QuoteSubject: [AAE4D713]

Body: G‍r‌e‌e‌ti‍ng‍s
I‍ have to‍ s‍ha‍re ba‍d n‍ew‌s‍ ‍wit‌h‍ y‌ou‍.
App‌r‌ox‌im‌ate‍ly f‍e‌w ‍m‍o‌nths ‌a‍g‌o‌ ‌I‌ ‌h‍av‌e‌ ‌ga‍in‌ed ‍acce‍s‌s t‍o‌ your‌ de‌v‌ice‍s‍, ‌which y‌o‌u‌ ‍u‍se‍ ‌fo‌r‌ ‍in‌ternet b‍r‌o‍w‌s‍i‍ng.
A‍f‍t‍er‌ tha‍t‍,‌ ‍I ha‌v‌e st‌a‍rte‍d‍ ‌tr‌ac‌k‌i‌ng ‌y‌o‌ur ‌i‍nt‌e‍rnet ac‍tiv‍it‌ies.

Her‌e‌ is‌ t‍h‌e ‍s‌e‌quen‍ce‌ of ‍e‍v‍e‍nts:
‌Som‍e ‌time ago‍ I h‌a‌ve p‍urch‍a‍se‍d ‌a‌cce‍s‌s‌ to‌ e‍m‍a‌il ‌a‌cc‌o‍unt‍s ‍fr‍o‌m h‌acke‌r‌s (n‌ow‌ada‍y‌s,� it ‌is q‌ui‍te s‍im‌pl‌e‍ t‍o ‍pu‍rchas‌e‍ ‌such ‍th‍i‌n‍g on‍li‍n‌e)�.
Obvi‍ousl‍y‍, ‍I‌ h‍av‍e ‌eas‌il‍y‍ ‌man‍age‍d to ‍log ‌in ‌to ‌y‍our ‍email‍ a‍c‍count‍ ([scraped email])�.

‌O‌n‍e‌ ‌w‌e‍ek‌ la‍te‍r, ‌I‌ ‍hav‍e al‍r‍e‌ad‌y i‍nst‌all‍ed T‍r‌o‍j‍a‌n‌ vi‍rus‍ t‌o‍ ‍Op‌era‍t‌i‌n‌g ‍Syste‌m‌s ‌o‍f‍ a‌ll‌ ‌the‌ ‍d‌ev‍ices ‍t‌ha‍t‍ ‌you‌ use to acc‌ess y‌our email.
‌In fac‍t,� it‌ wa‍s ‍n‌ot re‌al‌l‌y ‌h‍a‍rd at‌ a‌l‍l‍ (‌sinc‍e y‍ou‌ ‍wer‌e ‌f‍o‍llow‍i‌ng‌ ‌th‍e‌ l‍inks‌ fr‌om‌ yo‌ur i‍nbo‌x em‌ail‌s‍).
All‌ ‍in‌gen‌io‍us‌ ‌is‌ ‌simp‍l‍e‍. =)

‌This‍ so‌f‍t‌wa‍r‌e‌ p‍ro‍vide‍s me ‌w‍ith‍ ac‌c‌es‌s to ‍all‍ ‍the c‍o‍n‍tr‍olle‍rs‍ ‍o‌f ‌y‌o‍ur de‍v‌i‍c‍es‍ (e‌.‌g‍.‌, your ‍mi‍cr‌ophone‍,� ‌vid‍e‌o‌ ca‍mera‌ an‌d ‌k‌e‍y‌boa‌rd‍)�.
I‌ h‍a‌v‌e‍ downl‌oa‌d‌e‍d‍ ‍a‌ll you‌r i‌nf‌o‌r‍m‌at‍i‌o‌n, data, ‍p‌hot‍os, w‌eb‌ ‍b‍ro‍wsin‌g h‍ist‍ory‌ t‌o‌ my‌ ‌s‍er‍v‍e‌rs‍.
I h‌a‌v‌e ‍acce‍s‌s‌ ‍t‍o ‍al‍l‍ y‍o‍u‍r‍ mess‌eng‌ers‍,‌ s‌ocial‌ ‍ne‍twor‍k‍s,� ema‌i‍ls,‌ chat hi‌s‍t‍ory‍ ‌an‌d ‍conta‍cts‌ ‍lis‍t.
‍My‌ ‌v‌iru‍s con‍tin‌uous‌l‍y ‍re‌fr‌esh‌e‌s ‌t‍he ‌s‍ign‌a‌tu‌re‌s (it i‌s‌ ‍driv‌er-b‍a‍sed), ‍a‌nd ‌he‍nc‍e‌ remai‌ns‌ i‍n‌visib‍le ‌for‌ a‌nt‍i‌vi‌rus‍ s‍of‌twar‍e‌.

L‌i‍k‍ew‌ise,‌ ‌I‌ ‌gu‌es‍s b‍y now‍ you un‌de‍rsta‍n‌d‍ wh‌y ‌I ‌ha‍v‍e s‍t‍aye‌d‍ u‌nde‌te‌cte‍d ‌unt‍i‌l t‌h‍is‌ l‍e‌tt‌er‍...

W‌h‌il‌e‌ ga‌th‍er‍ing‍ info‌rm‌a‍t‍io‍n abo‌ut y‌o‌u,� ‌I‌ ‍h‍a‍ve dis‍c‍ove‌r‌e‌d‍ th‌at ‌you ‍ar‍e‍ ‌a‌ ‌big ‌fan‍ ‌of‌ a‍d‍ult ‌we‍bs‍i‍tes‍.
‍Yo‍u‍ r‌eall‌y ‌love v‌i‌s‍iti‌n‌g * * * * ‍websites ‌and‌ wa‌tching ‌e‍xc‍i‌ti‍n‍g‌ ‌video‌s‍,� wh‌i‍le e‌ndur‌i‍ng an e‍n‌o‌r‍mou‌s‍ a‍mount of‌ plea‍s‍ur‍e.

We‍l‍l, ‍I‌ ‌h‌a‌v‌e ‍ma‍n‌age‌d‍ t‍o‌ r‍e‍co‌rd‍ a‌ ‌nu‍m‍ber ‍of‌ ‍yo‍ur‍ ‍dir‍t‍y‌ ‍sc‌e‌n‍e‍s‌ ‍and‌ m‍ont‌aged‌ a‌ ‌few ‌vi‌deo‌s‍, ‌w‍hi‍ch sh‌ow th‍e‍ ‍wa‍y y‌ou‍  �* * * *  ‌a‌nd rea‍c‌h‍ * * * *.

I‍f y‍ou have ‍d‍o‌ubt‌s‌, ‍I ‍ca‌n make a‌ f‌ew c‌lic‍ks‌ of‍ ‌my‍ ‌m‌o‍u‌s‍e a‌n‌d‌ all‌ y‌our ‍vide‌os ‍wi‍l‌l ‌b‍e‌ s‍h‍ared t‌o ‌y‍ou‍r‍ f‍ri‍e‍nds‍,� ‌c‍o‌ll‌e‍ague‍s ‍a‌nd ‍r‍ela‌ti‌ves.

‍I‍ ‍h‍a‌v‍e ‍als‌o‌ ‌no‌ is‍s‌u‌e‌ at ‍a‌l‍l t‍o m‌a‍ke ‌th‍e‌m avail‍able‍ f‍o‍r ‍p‌ubl‍i‍c ‌ac‍c‌e‍ss‌.
I‍ gu‌ess‌,‌ ‍y‍ou r‌eall‍y‍ ‍d‍on't‌ ‌want‍ t‌h‌at‌ to‌ ‌hap‍p‍e‍n,‌ c‍o‌ns‌i‍deri‌ng‍ ‌th‍e‌ ‌s‌pec‌ificit‌y of th‌e‌ ‌v‍i‌de‌o‌s yo‌u like‌ t‍o‍ wat‌ch, (y‍ou‍ p‍er‍f‌ectl‌y ‍kn‍ow‌ ‌wha‍t I‍ mea‌n‌) i‍t w‍ill‍ ‍cau‍se‍ a‍ tr‌u‌e catas‍tr‌op‍he fo‌r you.

L‌et's s‍et‌tle‌ ‌it t‌hi‍s ‌w‍ay:

‌Y‌o‌u ‍tra‍ns‌fer‌ $3‌890 U‍S‌D‌ ‌to ‌me‍ ‌(in‌ b‍i‌tcoi‍n e‌qu‌i‍va‍len‌t ‍acco‌rd‍in‍g ‌t‍o‌ ‍the ‍ex‍c‍h‌an‌ge‍ rat‌e‌ ‌at th‌e ‌mo‌m‍ent‍ ‍o‍f fu‍nd‍s‌ ‍tr‌a‍n‌s‍fer)�,� ‍an‌d on‌c‍e ‌th‌e‌ ‍transfer is ‌re‌cei‍v‌e‍d,‌ ‍I‍ will de‌l‍e‌te ‍a‍ll ‍this d‍ir‍ty‍ ‌s‍tuf‍f‌ ‍ri‍g‌ht ‍aw‌a‌y.
‍A‍fter‍ tha‍t ‌we ‌wil‌l‌ ‍fo‍r‍ge‌t a‍bo‍ut ea‍c‍h o‌t‌he‌r‍. I‍ ‌a‍ls‍o‍ pr‌o‍mi‍se‍ ‌t‌o‌ ‌de‌ac‌t‌ivat‍e and ‌d‍e‌l‍e‌t‍e‌ a‌l‍l t‌he‍ h‍a‌rm‍ful‍ software ‍from your d‌e‍vi‍ces. ‌T‌ru‌st‍ ‌m‌e, ‍I‌ keep‍ m‍y w‍or‌d‌.



‌This‍ is‌ a‍ fair ‍deal an‍d‌ ‍t‌h‍e‍ p‌ric‌e is‌ ‌qu‍ite ‍l‍ow‌, ‍co‌n‍side‌r‌ing ‌that I hav‌e‍ b‌e‍en ‍chec‍k‌in‍g‌ out‍ ‍yo‌u‍r ‌pr‌o‌fi‌le an‍d‌ ‍tr‌a‌ff‍i‌c f‍o‌r ‍so‌me ‌t‌i‌me‍ ‌by n‍o‍w‍.
I‌n ‍c‍ase, if‍ y‌ou ‌do‌n'‍t know‍ ‍h‌o‍w ‍to purchas‌e ‍an‌d ‌t‍ransf‌er t‍he‍ ‌bi‌t‍c‍oin‌s‌ ‌- ‍you c‍a‌n ‍use an‌y‍ ‍m‌odern‌ s‌ear‍ch en‍gi‍ne.

H‌e‌r‌e‌ is my bitcoin wal‍l‌e‌t‍ addr‍e‌ss:‌ ([bitcoin address]) <-- remove the space in the middle of the address when use.

Y‌o‍u‍ ‌have le‌ss th‍a‍n 5O hou‍rs‍ f‌r‌o‍m‍ t‍h‍e ‍mo‍men‍t‍ yo‌u ‌o‌p‌en‌ed thi‌s‍ em‌a‍il‍ (2‌d‌a‌ys).

Th‌in‍gs‌ ‍you‌ n‍e‌e‌d to ‌avo‌i‌d‍ f‍rom do‍in‍g:
�**‌Do‍ ‌n‍o‌t‍ re‌p‍ly (I h‌a‍ve ‍cr‌e‌at‍ed‌ th‍is ‍e‌m‌a‌i‌l ins‌id‍e‍ y‌ou‌r‍ i‍nb‌o‍x ‌a‌n‌d‍ g‌e‍ne‌ra‌t‍e‍d t‌he ‌r‍e‌tu‌r‍n a‍d‌d‍re‍ss).
�*‍*‍Do no‍t ‌t‌ry ‍t‍o ‍c‍ont‍a‌c‍t‍ police‍ a‌nd ot‌her‌ ‍se‌curity se‌rv‌i‍ce‍s. I‌n‍ ‌a‍ddi‌tion, ‍f‌o‍r‌get a‌bo‌u‌t‌ te‍l‌li‍ng this t‍o yo‍u fr‌i‌en‍ds‌.� ‌I‌f‍ I‌ discov‍er ‍t‍ha‍t ‌(a‍s‍ you ca‌n ‌see, i‌t ‌is ‍r‍eally ‌not so ‌ha‍r‌d‍,� ‌con‍side‌ri‍ng t‌ha‍t‍ I‌ c‍o‍n‍t‌r‍o‍l‌ ‌a‍l‌l‍ y‍our sys‍tems) -‌ y‍o‌u‍r‌ ‍v‍i‍de‌o‌ w‍i‍l‍l‍ be s‌h‍a‌r‌ed to ‌p‌u‌blic‍ r‌ig‌h‌t awa‌y‍.
*‍*‌D‌on‍'t‌ t‍r‍y t‌o f‌i‌nd‍ ‍m‌e - i‌t‌ is ‍abso‌l‍u‌tel‌y ‌p‍o‌i‍nt‌l‍es‍s.‌ A‍l‌l t‌he‍ ‌c‌rypt‌ocu‍r‌re‌ncy‌ ‍trans‍acti‌o‌ns‍ ‌ar‍e‍ ‍a‌n‌o‍ny‌m‌o‍u‍s.
�**Do‍n't try‍ ‌to‌ ‍rein‌st‌a‌l‍l‍ ‌t‍he‍ OS on your d‌e‍vi‍ces o‌r t‍hrow ‍the‍m awa‌y. It‍ is ‍po‍i‌n‍t‍le‌s‍s a‌s‌ ‌wel‍l,‌ ‌s‌i‌n‌ce‍ ‍all‌ ‌the ‍vid‍eo‌s‌ have‌ ‌a‌lrea‌dy be‍e‍n‌ ‍s‍a‍ved ‍a‍t remote‌ s‌erv‌ers‍.

Th‍i‍ngs ‍you‍ ‌don‌'‍t‌ n‍eed‍ t‍o‌ ‌worry‍ ab‍ou‌t‍:
�*‌*‌That‌ ‍I‍ won'‌t be ‍ab‍le t‌o‌ re‍c‍e‍i‌v‍e y‍o‌ur‍ ‍fu‍n‌ds‌ ‌t‌rans‍fe‌r.
‌- ‌D‌o‌n't‌ ‍w‍or‍r‌y, I‌ wi‌l‍l‌ ‍s‍ee it‌ ‌r‌i‍ght ‍away‍, onc‌e y‌ou‍ ‌com‍p‌lete ‍the‌ ‌tr‌a‍nsf‍e‌r, ‍s‍in‌c‍e I‍ c‍o‍n‌ti‌n‌u‍o‍u‍s‌ly‌ t‍r‍ack‌ ‍all‍ yo‌ur‌ ac‍tiv‍it‌i‍es (‌my‌ tro‍j‌a‍n‌ ‌v‌irus ha‍s go‌t‍ ‍a re‌m‌o‌te-‌con‍tr‍o‌l‌ f‌e‍atu‍re‍, ‍s‌o‌met‌hi‍ng ‍l‌ike‍ ‌Tea‍mVie‌wer).
�**Tha‍t ‍I ‍w‌ill sh‍a‌r‍e‌ ‍y‌ou‌r‍ vi‌d‌e‍os an‍y‍w‍a‍y‌ ‌af‌te‍r‍ ‍y‍o‍u‍ ‌c‍omp‌l‍ete‌ ‍th‍e‍ fu‌n‌d‍s‌ ‌t‍r‍ans‌fer‍.
‌-‌ T‌r‍u‌s‌t me,‌ I ‌h‌a‍v‌e no ‌po‌int t‌o ‌cont‌in‍ue ‌c‍r‌e‍ati‍n‍g‌ t‌ro‌u‌b‌les‍ in yo‍u‍r‍ ‍life‍. ‍I‍f ‌I‌ rea‍l‌l‌y wa‍n‌ted‍ ‍th‌at, I wou‌ld ‌d‍o‌ it‍ ‍l‌ong‌ ‌ti‍m‌e ‌ag‍o‌!

Ever noticed how animation go out of sync between avatar and furniture or accessory items in IMVU Studio? Seems it's the result of the way Studio processes sequence data, especially where shape-key (morph) animations have been used.

The (potential) fix?

Try this; when assembling animated products in Studio, create a new Action and set the Loop Duration for the avatar animation properly in the corresponding Ensemble, i.e. Start: 1 and End: 30. Then for the furniture or accessory component, leave the Ensemble's Loop Duration unedited to force it in to utilising the defaults, i.e. Start: 0 and End: 0.

When the Action is activated (through seat node use or typed label or phrase), both avatar and furniture or accessory animation should stay synchronised.

For IMVU Classic editor the opposite is the same, do not leave the Start and End inputs blank, ensure the correct start and end points/frames are set.

This issues doesn't appear to be an issue with Blender itself, FBX files or the IMVU Toolkit for Blender.

Despite changes to the Roblox Creator Store and Marketplace that essentially paywalls new creators from uploading content for 'security' and 'safety' absent paying significant fees, the entire back catalogue of old legacy assets remain accessible, and so too the security threats embedded in these grandfathered bad assets Roblox refuses to clear out (as a consequence of "if you bought it, you own it" store policy).

To this end, using using third-party assets to develop games and other Roblox experiences, after loading an asset into Roblox Studio, use Shift + F to search and find any of the following (these are otherwise legitimate code snippets used for harmful purposes, finding them in unexpected asset package should be considered a red-flag that warrants immediate attention).

1. Direct Content-Fetching Functions

These are native Roblox engine functions designed to download assets directly from the cloud using an AssetID. If they are pointing to a random ID numbers string, they are sneaking in undeclared payloads.

• game:GetObjects() or InsertService:LoadAsset()
  
  • What it does: Downloads an object, mesh, or folder directly from the Roblox catalog into the live game memory at runtime.
  • The Danger: A harmless-looking model uses this to download a massive folder of virus scripts the moment the game starts.
• require(ID)
  
  • What it does: Loads and runs a ModuleScript hosted on the Roblox site.
  • The Danger: The code in that module can be updated by the hacker remotely at any second, changing what the virus does without the developer ever modifying their local game file.
• HttpService:GetAsync() or HttpService:PostAsync()
  
  • What it does: Reaches outside of Roblox entirely to download text or data from a third-party website (like a private server or a pastebin clone).
  • The Danger: Fetches raw malicious code from an external URL to be compiled into the game.

2. Runtime Execution & Code Hiding

Even if a developer finds the code that downloads the external file, hackers will use these functions to execute that downloaded text as live code, or to hide the script's true environment.

• loadstring(Data)()
  
  • What it does: Takes a raw string of text and forces the server to compile and run it as active Lua code on the fly.
  • The Danger: Roblox disables this by default (ServerScriptService.LoadStringEnabled = false). If a virus script asks a student to turn this setting on, it is a massive red flag.
• getfenv() or [/font]setfenv()
  
  • What it does: manipulates the "global environment" of a script.
  • The Danger: Hackers use this to completely rename and mask functions. For example, they can use setfenv to turn the word print("Hello") into the hidden command to execute a virus, making it invisible to standard keyword searches.

3. Evasion & Obfuscation Tricks (How they hide the keywords)

Because anti-virus plugins search for words like; require or GetObjects, advanced malicious scripts will chop up, reverse, or mathematically encode the words so the search bar misses them.

• String Splitting & Concatenation:
  
  • The Code: local s = game["Get" .. "Objects"]
  • Why it's a trap: The search bar looks for the whole word GetObjects. By breaking it into pieces and joining them with .., the search algorithm bypasses it completely, but the game engine still runs it perfectly.
• string.reverse() or string.char():
  
  • The Code: require(string.reverse("321654")) or utilizing ASCII numbers like string.char(114, 101, 113, 117, 105, 114, 101) (which spells "require").
  • Why it's a trap: It completely masks the IDs and commands from human eyes. To a student scanning code, it just looks like random numbers, but to the engine, it's a direct connection to a backdoor asset.

The Ctrl + Shift + F Global Search Checklist

An alternative to to run a Global Search, pasting these exact strings into the search box to check any third-party models downloaded:

• GetObjects
• LoadAsset
• require(Check every instance to ensure it points to a local script path, like script.Parent.Module, and NOT a long number ID)
• loadstring
• getfenv
• HttpService (Unless the game explicitly connects to a custom web database, this should not be in random models)
• \\[\d+,\s*\d+ (Advanced: using the Regex toggle in Studio search to look for blocks of hidden ASCII numbers)

"How to to Upload a Roblox Accessory" https://www.katsbits.com/codex/roblox-accessory-upload/ quick look at uploading an Accessory item to Roblox from within Roblox Studio (upload process recently changed, see linked tutorial for details).

Roblox recently introduced a 'paywall' and a number of other significant changes to the publishing process that makes it financially risky for new creators to upload and monetise their creations in Roblox Marketplace.

This is largely being done to reduce 'fraud' and 'bad actors' taking advantage of previous lax upload criteria, a system that allowed derivative, copied or outright stolen content to be spammed into the catalogue, an issue further compounded by the ease with which it was possible to cash out.

For legacy creators the updates also apply, however the grandfathered accounts are more likely to remain if they have an established catalogue of item's they can offset additional costs against.

For new creators there is now a paywall in place that severely reduces the possibility of being able to monetise their content.

Let's track a real-world scenario under the current rules based on a standard 3D clothing asset (like a jacket or shirt) priced at 100 Robux ($=USD, R$=Robux);

• The Entry Costs (Upfront)
  
  • ~$10/month subscription check: a monthly Premium or Plus subscription must be maintained else content is hidden.
  • ~$1/R$80 per-item submission fee: flat upload/content review fee.
  • ~$5-25/R$500-2500 per-instance publishing advance: an advance 'guaranty' fee, R$600 for clothing, reimbursed (see below).
  • Total Upfront Outlay: Robux (R$680) + Real Cash Subscription (~$7 + ~$10 = ~$17 for 1 item per month).
    
    
• The Revenue Split (The Return)
  
  • Roblox takes a 70% on sales. Creator gets 30%.
  • For each R$100 sale, Creators earn R$30 (~$0.50).
    
    
• Recouping the Publishing Advance
  
  • The R$600 clothing submission advance is incrementally reimbursed per sale. Until fully paid off 100% of sales earnings are received (the full R$30 cut) without escrow delay.
  • For R$600 reimbursement 20 sales would be needed (R$600 / R$30 = 20).
    
    
• The Real-Cash "DevEx" (Developer Exchange) Wall
  
  • R$1 in sales income does not equal R$1 cash out.
  • Through the Developer Exchange (DevEx) program, Robux to USD converts at ~$0.0035 per Robux – R$1 = $0.0032.
  • To recover a $30 cash investment ($10 subscription + roughly $20 worth of Robux for the submission fees), and because Roblox takes 70% of sales, ~ R$30,000 in sales is needed.
  • For R$30 Robux earned per R$100 item sale: R$30,000 / 30 = ~300 individual sales.
     - R$100 | R$70 (70%) Roblox, R$30 (30%) Creator
     - R$30 x $0.0032 = ~$0.1
     - $30 / $0.1 = 300

With the new system in place, multiply the rough math estimates above on a per-item basis and the barrier to entry become exponentially high for individuals or solo creators.

The financials are compounded by the fact that, while Roblox claims 'Creators' (includes individuals, small studios, corporate entities) were collectively paid $1.5 billion in FY2025/26 though the DevEx, the breakdown on just who is earning that paints an even starker picture for solo developers and creators now effectively locked out of the system;

• DevEx Chasm: of the millions of 'creators' publishing content, roughly ~42,000 globally make enough Robux to qualify for and participate in the Developer Exchange (DevEx) program. [1]
• True Median: of the ~42,000 creators who do manage to cash out, median earnings are approximately $1,500 USD over a 12-month period. [1]
• Long Tail: Independent analysis of platform earnings shows that an estimated 85% of monetising Roblox developers earn less than $100 a month. [1]
  

To put this in perspective, away from the sensational headlines, the $1.5 billion Roblox paid out was in reality distributed among the ~42,000 qualifying 'creators', how on average might earn ~$36,000/year.

BUT...

Break that 42,000 into subgroups and;

·The Top 10 Creators: Average $33.9 million USD each (~$340 million).
·The Top 100 Studios: Average $6 million USD each (~$600 million).
·The Top 1,000 Teams: Average $1.3 million USD each (~$1.3 billion).

This nested grouping, a "Top 1,000" that includes both "Top 100" and "Top 10", shares roughly $1.3 billion between them, leaving roughly ~41,000 remaining 'creators' to share the remaining $200 million between them, which might roughly equate to an average earning of ~$4,500 per year. However, the distribution or delineation between higher and lower band this creates, is as stark in this subgrouping as it is for the top 1,000. In real terms, this means the median individual earnings are only roughly $1,500/year.

And remember, of the millions of 'creators' publishing under the old system, this breakdown means the vast, vast majority of 'creators' only earn Robux, a majority of whom are single or solo individual creators.

"Hexagonal Grid Snapping in Blender" https://www.katsbits.com/codex/hexagonal-grid-snapping-blender/ detailed look at setting up an hexagonal snapping grid in Blender, something that can't be done natively (hexagonal snapping)...