mcbink

I have a Swann DVR at the moment, but may plan to move to NVR and IP Cameras in the future, maybe NAS too. I have been looking at the Synology (NAS, Network Attached Storage) system and think it is a possibility but I'm not sure if I would really need it. So far as I can see you pay a fee if you want to add more than two cameras. I have not looked to see if it is a monthly fee or a one off fee. It does seem that the Synology system allows you to manage the storage yourself, rather than have paid storage by an internet cloud service that could be accessed by the cloud provider, so has it's advantages. Paying to store surveillance video where other people could view it, is like saying, I have something worth looking at so don't peek! It's one of the areas that I need to look at in depth. The DVR HD system I have, is basic, but works. One problem is that it's basic and I'd like some features like thumbnail viewing when searching through stored footage as this can help reduce the time spent pinpointing an event. I'd also want a system that records to the full extent of MP on all cameras not just a couple of channels then downgraded to half the MP on the rest which is pretty useless in my view. You have given me some food for thought Tom, Cheers.

Web storage via paid internet site ....... is basically your renting space on someone else’s server.... there are lots of ways to set it up....... you could even ask a member of your family to host space on there pc / server Or use your own and have it local .... hidden in loft .... you only need a hard drive hub connected to your router...... and you can access that local without any internet or you can make it available over wan. Always safer to build your own and better and no stupid monthly costs for each camera . And also paid cloud is like giving a stranger access to your camera system Web storage via paid internet site ....... is basically your renting space on someone else’s server.... there are lots of ways to set it up....... you could even ask a member of your family to host space on there pc / server Or use your own and have it local .... hidden in loft .... you only need a hard drive hub connected to your router...... and you can access that local without any internet or you can make it available over wan. Always safer to build your own and better and no stupid monthly costs for each camera . And also paid cloud is like giving a stranger access to your camera system Thank's Tom, I need to look at this in depth. I have not found info on how to link a camera directly to a HDD without using some sort of software via the internet yet, but from your reply it seems to be possible. Maybe I'm having a problem grasping the technology. What I was wondering is can you go directly from a camera to HDD to store video via Local wireless system? I'm guessing you still need some video management software to organise the footage. Using a PC means having a PC on all the time which is why I wondered if you could store directly from the camera to a HDD.

Hi All, Recently read a comment on here that IP Cameras, can store video using Cloud at home. I was aware storage is possible at the NVR using a HDD and Web storage via a paid internet site. But someone on here said you only needed local Cloud at home with no internet. Can anyone explain how this works. Recording directly to cloud storage at home without internet access?

I read this reply and thought I'd try it on a similar basis with my Swann 4750 DVR.........NOT WORKED FOR ME! I have been using a USB extender cable with a Asus mouse and had good results. The USB extension cable was purchased by recommendation for the distance I required. This works ok with the Asus mouse but fails when I use the supplied Swann mouse. I tried using the Logitec 185 attached to the end of my USB extension cable with no luck, the pointer just stopped working. I then re-set the DVR and plugged the Logitec receiver directly into the DVR and agian the pointer just froze. Each time I had to turn off the DVR to bring things back to normal. I guess this wireless mouse might work for some systems but obviously not for others.

Yes that's called genuine products. We're talking gray / copy / counterfeit products. With CE mark with no inspection. The Chinese government was asked about miss use of the CE mark Which they copy exact....... They call it China export logo No, I referenced an article about "The Sale of Grey Goods and Uk Law" but that's not to say do not have valid points in respect of copy/counterfeit goods and CE marking.

No such thing as rejected CE mark ......... It's rejected before conformity. Gray / copy market ....... The CE is not real The manufacturer who holds the CE conformity...... Is where the liability starts It depends why the goods are rejected, they may conform to specific CE standards but rejected for other reasons not related to the specific CE standard. Throwing the CE marking into this is just sidetracking the post and does nothing to provide anything to the contrary that "Sale of Grey Goods being subject to Criminal Liability in the UK". Chinese Manufacturers can easily produce goods to meet CE standards. I buy goods all the time that used to be manufactured in Germany and the UK but are now manufactured in China. Top brand names, all CE marked, and that I can register at the brand name website.

Where did the Judge restrict his judgement, regarding the "sale of Gray marked goods", solely, to Jeans and designer clothes? Part of the Judges decision below: ” Writing for the court, Judge Rook continued on to state: “In some cases moreover (for example, electrical goods or toys) very real issues of public health and safety can arise where the goods are fake or, even if originally manufactured with the trade mark proprietor's authorization, are then rejected as sub-standard but nevertheless sold on without authorization.” Looking at what the Judge wrote. I would take it that goods genuinely intended for the UK market could have CE mark but have been rejected and still sold on the Uk market without Authorisation, and so subject to criminal Law. CE marking was not at the centre of the post, it was the judges decision relating to the "sale of "Gray Goods" and the UK Law.

Better tell the UK Judge then Tom, LoL. USA legislation on Gray market goods is not the same as UK Legislation. From what I can make out, Tom, it's not illegal to import Gray market goods but in the UK the selling of un-authorised Gray market goods might be subject to criminal sanctions. So it seems that sellers of gray market goods are the ones that may be breaking the law. I guess you will have to look into the legal judgments of cases to see how this may effect sellers of gray market goods in the UK. Of course if you are selling the goods from China then it's not going to have much effect, LOL. I don't think goods officially intended for distribution in the UK are a problem, even if they are sold by un-authorised sellers, it's the gray market goods from what I understand.

Thank you

The Sale of Gray Market Goods is Now Subject to Criminal Liability in the UK The recent Court of Appeals decision in the United Kingdom has confirmed that the sale of gray market goods can bring about criminal sanctions under UK trademark laws. According to a decision from earlier this month, the Court of Appeals Criminal Division held that the sale of gray market goods (or parallel imports, as they are sometimes known) – genuine goods purchased outside a manufacturer's intended chain of distribution and imported to compete with authorized domestic sales, generally at lower prices – is not merely a civil offense but a criminal one. Not merely a trivial ruling, this distinction means that offenders could face a sentence of 10 years’ imprisonment. The case centers on the legality of the sale of authentic Ralph Lauren, Adidas, Under Armour, Jack Wills, and Fred Perry garments and accessories by parties that were not authorized to do so by the aforementioned brands. According to the plaintiffs’ complaint, the defendants were “engaged in the United Kingdom in importing and selling branded goods which were both manufactured and [initially] sold with the authorization of the [plaintiffs] in a country outside the European Union.” The plaintiffs further allege that “these include, or may include, goods which had been part of an order placed with an authorized manufacturer by the trade mark proprietor but then cancelled; goods part of a batch whose manufacture had been authorized but which, after manufacture, were rejected as not being of sufficient standard; or goods manufactured, pursuant to an order, with authority but in excess of the required amount.” Because the goods at issue were largely authentic, the issue was not one of trademark infringement or counterfeiting, in which an individual would only be held liable if the goods are counterfeit goods – aka if they feature a mark made to look identical to or substantially indistinguishable from an actual, federally registered trademark, with the intention of causing consumer confusion about the source of the counterfeit goods or services. Here, the case, instead, focused on whether or notan individual can be held criminally liable for selling gray market – authentic, yet questionably obtained and resold – goods. In particular, the court was faced with the question: “Can a criminal offense be committed under s. 92(1)(b) or © of the Trade Marks Act 1994 (the statute that governs trademark infringement) where the [holder] of the registered trademark has given its consent to the application of the registered trademark to the goods, but has not given its consent to the sale, distribution or possession of them?" CRIMINAL LIABILITY AND GRAY MARKET GOODS IN THE UK While liability (or lack thereof) for the sale of gray market goods in the U.S. has largely come from civil statutes (namely, copyright and trademark doctrines), the court here found that criminal liability may be the appropriate body of law. According to the court, “Trademark violation gravely undermines the value of a brand and affects legitimate trade. The very fact of a cheap sale of an unauthorized branded item can both dupe a customer and diminish the market and overall value of the trademark, in terms of perception of quality and exclusivity.” Writing for the court, Judge Rook continued on to state: “In some cases moreover (for example, electrical goods or toys) very real issues of public health and safety can arise where the goods are fake or, even if originally manufactured with the trade mark proprietor's authorization, are then rejected as sub-standard but nevertheless sold on without authorization.” With this in mind, Rook stated that he aimed to balance “the often unscrupulous conduct of some of those determined to exploit their own advantage and the detriment of proprietors and consumers.” Looking to “the wording of Section 92; (2) earlier legal authority; (3) public policy,” Rook held that the wording “a sign identical to, or likely to be mistaken for a registered trademark” in Section 92 clearly includes circumstances where the registered mark itself has been applied, whether with or without the proprietor’s consent. In terms of the second point, previous authority, the court reviewed the leading textbook on trademarks, Kerly’s Law of Trade Marks, which outlined that s. 92 has a broad application and is capable of extending to gray market goods. Furthermore, the recent decision of Genis [2015] EWCA Crim 2043 was a binding authority, outlining that a conviction was safe even where a mark had initially been applied with the proprietor’s consent. Finally, the court held that public policy crucially highlighted how a cheap sale of an unauthorized brand can serve both to dupe a customer, diminish the mark and overall value of the trade mark and explained that a “very real issue of public health and safety [which] can arise where the goods are rejected as substandard but nevertheless sold without authorization.” While Judge Rook acknowledged that the decision to extend criminal liability to the sale of gray market goods may lead to tough outcomes in certain cases, the high burden of proof to establish a criminal offense and the fact that criminal sanctions are not applied when individuals have acted honestly and reasonably, will provide a sound balance.

Just read right through this post and done some research buying from China. It can seem a bargain to buy Hikvision from China and if everthing goes ok that's great BUT if something goes wrong or you want Hikvision 3 year warranty and technical support it's not so great Buying from China does not give you the same right as buying in your own country from an Hikvision Authorised seller. You have very little right to return a faulty product purchased from China and if the seller will allow you to make a return, it will likely be at your cost and be far more expensive if you do have to do a return than if you bought in your own country in the first place . Buying from China is going to pose some risk in the transaction SOME RISK, Until Chinese sellers start selling goods with the same return, warranty and customer support as we have in the west.

Well since your involving me in your posts ...... Ok I will correct you NVR ......Network Video Recorder. Simple mistake for someone who has never used one. But you are right IP cameras can recorded to NVR or SD card .........but your wrong in saying you need to Internet access for anything else. It's a rookie mistake that people think you need Internet for a IP setup. You only need a LAN network (local area network) and that allows more recording options ...... PC with vms ....local cloud....raid. Only time you need Internet or WAN is if you want off site storage or cameras are in another location (miles away) or to have the ability to view your system when away from you LAN. Your right with options DVR or NVR. But there is also hybrid .......which most DVRs these days are. Cheers Tom, 1. First let me thank you for the correction where I said "Storage" and should have said "Video", when referencing "Network Video Recorder", it was a slip that just came out wrong, still better to be corrected. 2. Again, cheers for the addition of further information regarding on site storage options with IP cameras. I was not aware of the amount of options and so did not list them all, but again it's good to be given the correct information, thank you

Hi ian2000t, Just wondered how you are doing with your search Ian? I know it is very difficult when you start looking because there is can be some confusion with the two main different types of system: "HD Analogue Camera + DVR"...... V..... "IP Camera + NVR". They can both produce HD quality video, they can both record to a recorder and either system can be used for surveillance in a home or business. You can link both systems up to the internet and so can have access by either system to a phone, Ipad or Android. Both systems will cope with motion detection and both systems have a pretty comprehensive array of thing they can do regarding recording video, storage, viewing, playback etc. I think the main difference, that I know of. 1. Analogue HD Cameras need to connect to a DVR to convert the Analogue Cameras signal to Digital. The DVR receives the Analogue signal from the Camera and converts it at the DVR to Digital signal. Once converted to Digital the signal can be sent via the internet and on to your Phone etc. 2. IP Cameras can connect directly to the internet and don't need an NVR. IP Camera convert signal at the camera to Digital form. As the video footage is already digital you can connect an IP camera directly to the internet, either by Ethernet cable or wirelessly via your router. If you do not use an NVR (Network Storage Recorder) to record your video at home and still want to record the video from the camera, you will need an IP camera with either onboard storage such as a SD card or you will need to have access to store video on the internet. That's about all I know and I'm ok with being corrected........ TOM. Let us know how you are getting on with your search Ian.

Tom take a look, Hickvision seem happy with them, if you are not, do something about it, complain to Hickvision not me as it's not constructive to complain to me I can't do anything for you on this one Tom Maybe I won't by a Hickvision NRV I've not decided but I agree I do still need to do a bit more homework and I will take seriously what you have said so far about Hickvision NVR's Tom. Forget about my friend, I only want to go to the vip bash if I can sit next to you Tom.

"CCTVTec Trade" are Hickvision Authorised, and by Hickvision. They will price match too if asked, I know because I have asked and they did. I should say that's all a buyer needs to know. Ask away about my Swann kit by all means. It works just fine Tom, and I don't have any complaints about the purchase price as when I purchased it I could not find anything that I considered any better for £245. I did not investigate CCTV too deeply before I made the purchase Tom, maybe a couple of weeks or so but in that two weeks it was pretty hard to find a system for £245 that could beat it. 6 x3megapixel cameras, 2T hard drive, DVR, mouse, 18 months warranty, 24/7 endless technical support, all leads and DC power supplies included, free links to use apps with the system for mobile phone, Ipad and Android, technical help with setting things up if needed. The Swann kit had competitive pricing and all the help I needed whenever I needed it right at the end of a phone. It's was just a very easy way to start off in CCTV. So why change or upgrade? Well I knew the Swann kit was a budget kit and it would probably have it's weaknesses but you don't really get to find out what they might be until you try do you. I was never going to break a sweat parting with £245 for a kit like the one I got from Swann and moving on has always been what I intended. I'll let one of my family have it when I upgrade so no loss there. I have already purchased one extra camera to complement the Swann Kit a variofocal 2.8mm to 12mm lens and intend buying another very soon, these will keep me going while I decide jut what I want. I think I could get a really good system for around £1200-1700 but I still need to look into things a bit more before I part with that sort of cash Tom. Swann are ok at the budget end if you can get a deal like I did but their higher priced systems are definitely not worth it (just my opinion). The Hickvisoin sellers I mentioned before are the companies I'll likely look to when I go ahead, they seem reputable companies to me. I hope the OP is able to make some use of all this. If noting else it might spark a few ideas. The heads up about Hickvision software should prove to be a useful consideration for future purchases.