Subscriber Discussion

Who Is Behind Blue Iris? - Security Features? - Manufacturer?

Avatar
Karsten Kirchhof
Apr 17, 2018

 I just recognized Blue Iris VMS. Found several open remote view clients of residential or small business customers on the internet. About 70% of system login pages name the customer on top of the page and offer http (no "s") connection to login. So user credentials might easily be picked from the network/browser even by less elaborated hackers.

Got a demo download but near to no documentation.
The EULA refers to a company named "Perspective Software" but doesn´t mention any adress.
I didn´t find "Perspective Software" on Google.

The "Read Me" after installation advises to except Blue Iris from anti virus tools.
For proper configuration it´s mandantory to open firewall for Blue Iris.

There´s a commercial construction via a reseller company in Ireland and a reference to another reseller in California but no direct name or adress of manufacturer. Looks quite strange to me.

Anybody here, who knows name / adress / legal situation of Blue Iris?

 

(1)
(2)
UI
Undisclosed Integrator #1
Apr 17, 2018

It's a somewhat open source product that has sort of evolved into a community project.  Lot of discussion on it over at this site.

IPCamtalk - Blue Iris Forums

(1)
JH
John Honovich
Apr 17, 2018
IPVM

#1, are you sure it's open source? I've never seen any references to Blue Iris being open sourced.

This morning, I contacted an IPCamTalk moderator for feedback to Karsten's questions.

(1)
U
Undisclosed #2
Apr 17, 2018

It is not open source. Never was. There is a forum member BP2008 who developed a third party webserver interface (which is excellent) called UI3. According to him, the developer will add it to a future blue iris release. 

IPCamtalk - Blue Iris UI3

(1)
U
Undisclosed #2
Apr 17, 2018

A simple google search will bring you here. Blue Iris Software

The documentation is all in the help file.

Also in the help file 
"Select the Use secure session and login page option in order to use the new login.htm page.  If you un-select this option, Blue Iris will also accept plaintext or "basic" authentication.  Basic authentication may be a requirement for the use of certain third-party add-on software such as TrackIT, Vera, and Control4."

It is developed by a single person. Ken Pletzer.

The help file directs you to use stunnel if you wish to implement https.

It is not mandatory to open firewalls for "proper configuration". Proper configuration, as with ANY vms or NVR, is to use a VPN.

 

Avatar
Karsten Kirchhof
Apr 17, 2018

At installation Blue iris software refers to be from (developed?) "Perspective Software".

There´s no hint on Ken Pletzer on  "BlueIrisSoftware.com".

There´s no "Perspective Software" website.

There´s no hint on Ken Pletzer even on BlueIris facebook page.

I didn´t search through all the IPcam chats,

but there´s no personalized email, skype, or... account mentioned neither on BlueIrisSoftware, facebook, IPcamtalk,... nor elsewhere (as far as I could see).

There´re lot of posts on IPcamtalk, but nearly no documentation beside some YT tutorials.

Bloomberg mentions some Ken Pletzer working at"Interactive Frontiers".

Zoominfo confirms:

https://www.zoominfo.com/c/interactive-frontiers-inc/54183814

 

Trying to hit "Interactive Frontiers" website, you have to accept security exceptions due to outdated SSL certficates and you´re forwarded to:

https://v1sports.com/

???

 

So Ken Pletzer is a very shy guy? Or perhaps in fact NO REAL PERSON?

(1)
U
Undisclosed #2
Apr 17, 2018

Why would there be a perspective software website? Perspective software makes a single program, blue iris.

Why would the developer put his personal info on a facebook page? He doesnt want folks like you hitting him up via those channels.

His name is mention in the apple store app description and the business address in the google play store app info.

As I said all the documentation is in the DETAILED help file that you refuse to read. There is further documentation in the release notes also found in the help file.

The real question is why you are so obsessed with him to the point where you post weird conspiracy theories. 

(1)
(3)
Avatar
Karsten Kirchhof
Apr 17, 2018

I don´t refuse to read a helpfile.

Could you send the link, please.

(1)
U
Undisclosed #2
Apr 17, 2018

Link? The help file, as with any help file, is located within the software. Simply click on the HUGE question mark on the top left OR click on the help button within any menu/setting page in the software.

(1)
(1)
(1)
UM
Undisclosed Manufacturer #3
Mar 09, 2019

There is a reason that "Ken" may be a little shy. A while back I ran across some information that accused BlueIris of infringement of FFMPEG code which is licensed as  GNU Lesser General Public License version 2.1 which basically as I understand it doesn't authorize commercial distribution without a full release of source code. But newer releases of BlueIris may have gotten rid of the offending "Freeware" so it may now be legit.

https://trac.ffmpeg.org/ticket/4732

 

(1)
(1)
U
Undisclosed #2
Mar 09, 2019

Right that's why he puts his full name Ken Pletzer on the IOS store app listing. If he was in fact infringing the copyright holder could find him easily by doing a simple corporate search. Seems that FFMPEG was not even interested in looking into it. So the real question is, why are you undisclosed and how does this false conspiracy theory help you :). Food for thought.

Perhaps you are just unnerved that a competitor can put a solid product for 60 bux with no per camera licensing. Yes, it doesnt have some enterprise features but it has many functions simply not available from the big boys and its perfect for the home/small business user. 

(2)
(2)
(1)
(1)
UM
Undisclosed Manufacturer #3
Mar 09, 2019

Well it’s a lot easier to profit while selling cheap software if you shortcut development by appropriating video software from others. And everybody knows lawyers aren’t gonna waste their time going after a micro-sized business operating on a shoestring. Also there is no sign of Ken’s name, business address, nor phone number on the main BlueIris website which is the primary place to to go to find out about his product.

Attempting to divert the question to my motives isn’t relevant as BlueIris will never be a serious competitor to my company. I was simply providing information pertaining to the OP’s original question. But it is interesting that you question my motives when you yourself are undisclosed.

(1)
(2)
(1)
(3)
U
Undisclosed #2
Mar 09, 2019

The use of FFMPEG is free. So it would cost him nothing, he would simply need to disclose the portion of the code he uses. Your implication otherwise is dishonest, more startling is that you know it to be false. Essentially you are complaining about a technicality. More importantly you falsely allege that this is the specific reason he does not post his name as if he could hide this way form a copyright holder, which you know to be false. He does not have to provide his name to his customers. Why the conspiracy theory?

Its great that you admit that you are a vms manufacture. Your motives are now clear. Blue Iris was never designed to be a competitor to enterprise vms. The 30,000+ blue iris users would never spend the money on your product. 

(3)
(2)
(2)
(3)
JH
John Honovich
Mar 09, 2019
IPVM

Undisclosed #2 is a 'Staff Member' at IP Cam Talk who sells Blue Iris software and support. However, #2 tells me that he does "not profit one dime from any sales of BI software on [IPCamTalk]".

I don't know manufacturer #3's motives, however, Blue Iris is not a product that any commercial company I know in surveillance views as a meaningful competitor.

(2)
(4)
U
Undisclosed #2
Mar 09, 2019

Manufacture 3 admitted to being a vms maker but yet you refuse to disclose that maker. Why the favoritism?

In addition, M3, claims to know Ken's motive, yet you have no problem with that. Why?

(1)
U
Undisclosed #4
Mar 09, 2019
IPVMU Certified

Manufacture 3 admitted to being a vms maker but yet you refuse to disclose that maker. Why the favoritism?

Maybe because the discussion is about Blue Iris.  Knowing that they work for BI or for a competitor is what’s important, not the name of the competitor.

(2)
U
Undisclosed #2
Mar 09, 2019

It is very important if John is claiming they are not direct competitors. Regardless, it makes you wonder why the competitor would misrepresent facts and come to his silly conclusions. Its one thing to allege failure to properly follow licensing guidelines its another to claim to know the reason why, when it makes no logical sense.  

(1)
(1)
U
Undisclosed #4
Mar 09, 2019
IPVMU Certified

It is very important if John is claiming they are not direct competitors.

Why?  Who are BI’s direct competitors? 

(1)
(1)
U
Undisclosed #2
Mar 09, 2019

It doesnt really matter if they are direct or not. You have to wonder why UM3 deliberately misrepresented the facts.

There is overlap between BI and many vms's, you can go down the list. In fact there are users who crossed over one way or the other from milestone free, and exacq. It really depends on the feature set that are "must haves". BI caters to the needs of home and small business users in general, however there are many with 40-50 cam installs. There are many features that BI has that are simply not available with business/enterprise vms's which home users want/need. There are some business users with the same needs who choose BI for those reasons. 

(1)
U
Undisclosed #4
Mar 09, 2019
IPVMU Certified

So is BI in compliance with the GPL of FFMPEG or not?

 

(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
U
Undisclosed #2
Mar 09, 2019

I have no idea. I have not tested. You can if you wish. If he is not, then its a valid criticism. The OP took it a step further and without any basis, concluded that this is the reason why he does not publish his name. Which is absurd on its face because: a) He does in fact provide his name in the apple store and b) anyone can easily find it via a corporate or even google search. My problem is not with the mention of a possible license violation, its with a) the conclusion the this is the reason he is "hiding", which is absurd and b) that he is able to sell the software cheap because he doesnt have to pay a license fee when FFMPEG is free. He would simply have to disclose the code. Bottom line is I question the reason for the conspiracy theory. 

(1)
U
Undisclosed #4
Mar 09, 2019
IPVMU Certified

I have no idea [if BlueIris is in violation of GPL].

wait, what? 

Maybe you should find out, since it looks like your main product:

You sure seem well-informed about other BI/FFMPEG matters as well as the developers google-ability, licensing remedies etc, yet “no idea” on whether it’s actually legal software.

Though, you’re wrong about the licensing req, as you stated:

The use of FFMPEG is free. So it would cost him nothing, he would simply need to disclose the portion of the code he uses.

since actually the GPL requires that the developer publish his own source code as well.  

Some parts of FFMPEG are licensed by the less restrictive LPGL, however BlueIris, at the time of the infraction, was found to have compiled explicitly with GPL libraries enabled:

--enable-gpl --cpu=i686 --prefix=/c/msys/1.0/ffmpeg/build --enable-libx264

So unless he has remidied this usage of ffmpeg or released his source code, he would seemingly be in violation.

 

(2)
(1)
(3)
(1)
(1)
U
Undisclosed #2
Mar 09, 2019

You are misinformed it's not our main product. Our main product is the forum itself. Understand that this forum has been around since early 2014, and has been touting the benefits of blue iris since then. The Forum is only started selling Blue Iris and any other product in the last few months - five years later. You are missing the point it would cost him nothing to comply with the license. Again my issue is not with the claim that he is not complying with the license its with the false misrepresentations by um3. It's okay, I understand how forums like ours threaten your business, whether you're an installer or VMS manufacturer, so I get the push back.

I would also note that hikvision among others have violated gpl licenses. Surely you are not installing or servicing any of their cams? You also check every product you install for those violations. You are a better man than me. 

(1)
U
Undisclosed #4
Mar 09, 2019
IPVMU Certified

You are misinformed it's not our main product. Our main product is the forum itself.

Ah, apologies, how about it’s “your main product for sale in your store”. Is that better?

You are missing the point it would cost him nothing to comply with the license.

It would cost nothing except he would have to release his own BI source code.  Has he done that? What’s that worth?

Again my issue is not with the claim that he is not complying with the license its with the false misrepresentations by um3.

So all this is to say that you don’t dispute um3’s claim of non-compliance, you just strenuously and repeatedly object to the snarky insinuation that “Ken’s” name can not be found on the BI website because he is laying low?

Don’t take it so “personally” :)

(1)
(2)
(1)
(1)
U
Undisclosed #2
Mar 09, 2019

Exactly. Your implication that its for sale on our store and that is why I come to the developers defense falls flat on its face when you scroll UP and see that I did it well before the forum began selling the software. Next.

The gpl license does not require you to provide free use of the entire program you build FFMPEG into. So the cost is zero. Nice try though.

On my forum I make it a point that I hate liars. This is true for across all manufactures and was my position from day one. Nothing was being sold at that time.

See, you get all upset when I called him out, but have no problem with him making baseless claims. It doesnt matter to me. No one on this site is buying blue iris. We both know that. The issue I have is with the misinformation. 

Again, I totally understand why you get upset that there is a 60 dollar vms that can destroy any standalone NVR and has features and functions not available on 150 dollar per camera vms. It a tough sell on your end as more and more users find alternatives. :)

(1)
(2)
U
Undisclosed #4
Mar 09, 2019
IPVMU Certified

The gpl license does not require you to provide free use of the entire program you build FFMPEG into.

c’mon man, enough already.

(1)
(1)
(1)
(2)
U
Undisclosed #2
Mar 09, 2019

It does not and that is fact. Perhaps you should read it in its entirety rather than a little snippet, no this is not the first time I've seen folks here come to improper legal conclusions.

U
Undisclosed #4
Mar 09, 2019
IPVMU Certified

Perhaps you should read it in its entirety rather than a little snippet...

So now you’re suddenly an authority on the vagaries of the GPL and the specifics of the FFMPEG library incorporated into the BI executable, yet still clueless on whether the software actually is in compliance?

 

(1)
JH
John Honovich
Mar 09, 2019
IPVM

Again, I totally understand why you get upset that there is a 60 dollar vms that can destroy any standalone NVR and has features and functions not available on 150 dollar per camera vms. It a tough sell on your end as more and more users find alternatives. :)

#2, you are wrong. First of all, #4 does not sell any video surveillance products. He's actually more similar to you in the sense that he is a smart person from outside the industry.

I don't understand the intricacies of licensing FFMPEG and I am betting most other people do not as well. Moreover, people can make mistakes (whether it is you or others) on such a niche technical topic. It's a bit baffling that you can't imagine you or others having a genuine, well-intentioned disagreement, instead of being so quick to lash out at other's motivation.

It is Saturday and I was out doing other things and I am now sitting back down to reply to things.

(1)
U
Undisclosed #2
Mar 09, 2019

So you have a problem with me coming to conclusions about someone's motivation, but don't have a problem with um3 doing the same?

(1)
JH
John Honovich
Mar 09, 2019
IPVM

#3 cited a license violation document on FFMpeg's website, e.g.:

He also qualified it by ending his statement with:

But newer releases of BlueIris may have gotten rid of the offending "Freeware" so it may now be legit.

That's a reasonable thing to add to a discussion about who Blue Iris is.

In a normal process, i.e., not one where you decided to immediately fight with us over a Friday night and Saturday morning, we would reach out to the company and ask for a comment. I am still happy to do that but I'd kindly ask you to give us 3 days to see what response we can get from Perspective / Blue Iris.

Also, since we are on the topic of licenses, I plan to ask them about licenses for H.264 and H.265. Neither the name Perspective nor Blue Iris is on the MPEGLA H.264 licensee list nor on the HEVC Advance (H.265) licensee list.

(1)
(1)
UM
Undisclosed Manufacturer #5
Mar 09, 2019

Looking at Amazon for the software, apparently Amcrest uses the same software or it's OEM for them.  Over 300 Q&A, most of them irrelevant, but if you sort by date, you get the most relevant info.

UM
Undisclosed Manufacturer #3
Mar 10, 2019

I did some research on FFmpeg a couple of years ago for a commercial project so I’d like to offer some clarification about FFmpeg licensing as I understand it in very basic laymen’s terms (I’m not a lawyer). For commercial applications there are basically 2 different licensing requirements, LGPL or GPL, depending on the options used during it’s compilation. Details at:  https://ffmpeg.org/legal.html

LGPL (Lesser GPL) License
This is the simplest and most commercial friendly license for FFmpeg. It allows FFmpeg usage with commercial software BUT with some very strict requirements.
   - It must be compiled without the “--enable-gpl" and “--enable-libx264” options. I found that this option disables the high performance assembly coded modules and substitutes the slower C coded modules. This also disables the x264 module from being included.
   - This requires that the FFmpeg binaries be dynamically linked at run time through the use of dll files (libswresample, libswscale, libavcodec, libavformat, and libavuti) that are very clearly marked within the executable directory.
   - The program must also mention "This software uses libraries from the FFmpeg project under the LGPLv2.1" in your program "about box".
   - It is NOT REQUIRED to release the source code of the commercial software.

GPL License
This is where the rubber really hits the road.
   - Allows full usage of the high performance assembly language coded modules.
   - Allows x264.
   - It IS REQUIRED to release the source code of the commercial software.

x264 Module
This deserves further clarification. x264 is how FFmpeg encodes H.264. Without it, no encoding, just decoding. A VMS will need an encoder if recording video that is modified from the original camera stream and to send video streams to client computers. (Except in the case where the client software can accept individual native streams from each camera). x264 is not actually part of FFmpeg but is fully supported for integration. It’s made by a different company and requires GPL licensing, not LGPL. They also offer commercial licensing for $ and must be negotiated. https://licensing.x264.org/en/

Further details of BlueIris GPL License Violation
4 years ago, “Reporter” analyzed BlueIris from one of its 4.0.9.x releases for potential FFmpeg license violations and was found to contain GPL code as well as x264 code. The BlueIris exe release file was compressed thus obfuscating the GPL usage in it’s internal string formats. “Reporter” used strings.exe to decompress the BlueIris exe file to reveal these hidden strings:
libswresample license: GPL version 2 or later
libswscale license: GPL version 2 or later
libavcodec license: GPL version 2 or later
libavformat license: GPL version 2 or later
libavutil license: GPL version 2 or later
Compile strings discovered:
--enable-gpl --cpu=i686 --prefix=/c/msys/1.0/ffmpeg/build --enable-libx264

Sources:

https://trac.ffmpeg.org/ticket/4732
https://trac.ffmpeg.org/attachment/ticket/4732/How_to_Discover_Hidden_GPL_Use_in_BlurIris.htm

Note: It is unknown if newer releases still contain this violation.

(1)
(2)
U
Undisclosed #4
Mar 10, 2019
IPVMU Certified

Yes, agreed.

U2 continues to insist that all BI needs to do to be compliant is have FFMPEG mentioned in the software.  And therefore it’s no big deal that they haven’t done that yet.  But the question really is, if it’s no big deal, why haven’t they done it in all these years?

good research! 

(1)
UM
Undisclosed Manufacturer #3
Mar 10, 2019

Right! And even IF BI was only using the LGPL compilation without x264, he would have to make a bunch of changes to get into compliance. 

On a side note, I believe it wouldn't be too hard to edit out the offending FFmpeg's strings in an exe file to escape detection on later versions. They may need more sophisticated methods to detect violations these days.

JH
John Honovich
Mar 11, 2019
IPVM

Update: Sean, on our team, shall contact Blue Iris, FFMPEG, MPEGLA, HEVC Advance, etc. to ask for comment or feedback. It's going to take a few days.

If anyone has factual input to add, please share. Otherwise, give us time to investigate and request feedback from the parties involved.

(1)
U
Undisclosed #6
Mar 11, 2019

It has been stated here - or at least inferred - that in order to use FFMPEG library components in commercial software (like a VMS) - that this requires revealing the source code of the commercial software (like a VMS) that is using the FREE FFMPEG library components.

I do not think that this could possibly be the case... as this makes little sense as a requirement.

Maybe I'm wrong - but I don't think I am.

U
Undisclosed #4
Mar 11, 2019
IPVMU Certified

It has been stated here - or at least inferred - that in order to use FFMPEG library components in commercial software (like a VMS) - that this requires revealing the source code of the commercial software (like a VMS) that is using the FREE FFMPEG library components.

No, not necessarily.  If you license the components under the LGPL then, source code of the container program need not be revealed.  Read here.

However in the case of the BI infraction under discussion, it would appear that they compiled using a more restrictive licensing perhaps because of performance considerations.   See above posts.

(1)
(1)
U
Undisclosed #7
Mar 11, 2019

So many trolls on this topic, let me help you out.

http://software.bbsdocumentary.com/COMMODORE/C64/CNET64/cnbbs.html

Coders got to start somewhere.

I haven't tried Blue Iris, perhaps I will download it and give it a go. Tried some Shinobi VMS which is ok, selling that to the technicians that barely peck at Microsoft seems like it is only going to be a boat anchor if deployed in the field.

Edit:Cool Homepage, this guy deserves some props.

 

 

(1)
(1)
Avatar
Sean Patton
Mar 18, 2019

A quick update: I have been in contact with all parties and will be gathering more information/details to post our findings next week.

(1)
(1)
PG
Pavel Grozdov
Nov 05, 2019

Hi Sean, you never got back to us with what you found.

(1)
Avatar
Sean Patton
Nov 05, 2019

We do not plan on publishing a full report, however here is what we know:

Blue Iris Response

We asked Blue Iris:

I am hoping to get some clarification regarding Blue Iris's use of FFmpeg LGPL or GPL licensing related to an identified violation on an older version of Blue Iris: ( #4732 (BlueIris Video Security Software violates GPL (Perspective Software)) – FFmpeg )
Does Blue Iris currently have an agreement in place with FFmpeg, or are new versions of Blue Iris not utilizing GPL or x264 from FFmpeg?
What license is Blue Iris using for H.264 and H.265 support? Neither "Perspective" nor "Blue Iris" is on the MPEGLA H.264 licensee list nor on the HEVC Advance (H.265) licensee list.

Blue Iris was defensive in response to our communications, and said they would license if necessary:

With tax day looming, I simply do not have time to investigate this further at this time.

I can say that it is not my intention to cheat anyone, and I will be glad to license as required by law once I determine the facts of the matter.

You are not forthcoming with your motivation ... why is it your job to report anything to anyone on other products?

FFmpeg Uncertain of Existing Violation

FFmpeg has an existing license violation for Blue Iris which is over 4 years old. We talked to FFmpeg to see if they believe Blue Iris is still in violation of their licensing. FFmpeg looked at the latest available release of Blue Iris and can no longer determine if they are using their open-source code or not.

They said they do not have proof that Blue Iris's latest release violates their license, but noted it was not difficult for software developers to hide the use of open source libraries.

MPEGLA Had Not Heard of Blue Iris

We spoke with MPEGLA (H.264/H.265 licensing) and they had not heard of Blue Iris, and would be reaching out to them. They noted they often hear from licensees about competitors who are not under license. They also clarified that MPEGLA maintains the Patent Portfolio and licensing agreements but does on enforce the licenses, which would be the responsibility of the patent holders/Licensors (H264, H254/HEVC). Additionally, they noted that for under 100,000 clients licensed per year, there is no fee. Details here:

H.265 from MPEGLA HEVC Patent Portfolio Briefing report:

(1)
(2)
JH
John Honovich
Nov 05, 2019
IPVM

Thanks, Sean. btw, we might publish a report at some time in the future, we've just been focused on companies and technology that is more widely used or has bigger commercial potential.

Avatar
Morten Tor Nielsen
Nov 05, 2019
prescienta.com

We talked to FFmpeg

Who did you talk to? It's a large collective, and with many independent contributors. They have a mailing list and IRC, but is there an "official" legal dept?

The FFmpeg violation would most likely have been a simple failure to provide attribution and hosting of the FFmpeg source used and compiler flags.

The problem is with the optional modules that are GPL'd and included unless you configure things the right way when building FFmpeg. Violation of these are (normally) handled by EFF, as it is often not viable for OSS devs to sue large corporation for theft of IP. EFF states that their interest is not huge fines, but simply to bring the offender to compliance (often just removing the use of GPL'd code).

Since most of the people in this discussion are clearly experts in LGPL and GPL as well as patent law, it's hard to contribute much, but I will say this: Its a little weird to see people hide behind anonymity and throwing shade at someone like BI. ESPECIALLY, and this is just my unsubstantiated opinion, when BI could be compliant at no cost, if Ken did a little of the boring paperwork that is needed.

There is not some grand conspiracy going on here. No master criminal who "stole" FFmpeg and pawned it off as his own, in order to overthrow the poor struggling VMS vendors who are developing everything from scratch.

I had the distinct displeasure of talking to a bunch of lawyers who felt that it might be an issue that a 3rd party library came with a PDF document that was generated by a tool that was under GPL. I suddenly understood the jokes about lawyers chained to each other under the sea...

(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
UM
Undisclosed Manufacturer #3
Nov 05, 2019

"ESPECIALLY, and this is just my unsubstantiated opinion, when BI could be compliant at no cost, if Ken did a little of the boring paperwork that is needed."

It's not quite that easy. x264 needs to be licensed and fees paid for commercial use. Excerpt from Commercial licences for H.264 encoder x264 - The H Open: News and Features

"A commercial x264 license is only required by users who link the x264 library to proprietary software or software which is otherwise incompatible with the GPL and who want to sell their software commercially. Interested users should contact x264 LLC. Garrett-Glaser points out that all vendors are obliged to pay license fees to the holder of the H.264 patent, i.e. have to sign a contract with MPEG LA."

(2)
Avatar
Morten Tor Nielsen
Nov 05, 2019
prescienta.com

It IS quite that easy.

You can trivially exclude x264 from the FFmpeg library (it's an explict --enable-libx264 switch in the build config) and instead use the standard H.264 decoder (called h264). That said, most people would probably use nvdec or dxva for H.264 decoding (as they use the GPU for HW decoding vs the x264 software decoder). I don't know if BI used one or the other, but if BI was historically in violation of unlicensed use of x264 must be a matter between x264 LLC and BI.

As stated by IPVM and myself: If you're a tiny player, the MPEGLA fees are zero, and I doubt anyone the size of BI was ever pursued by MPEGLA for not registering (and failing to pay the zero dollar fee).

(1)
(1)
(2)
UM
Undisclosed Manufacturer #3
Nov 05, 2019

Only problem with what you said is that x264 is an ENCODER not a decoder. And FFmpeg does not contain an encoder so if you exclude x264 in the build config, BI would be severely restricted in it's functionality.

Avatar
Morten Tor Nielsen
Nov 05, 2019
prescienta.com

First of all, x264 is not the only way to encode h264 using FFmpeg.

Second, how would BI be "severely restricted" by not ENCODING h.264?

Let's say that I wanted to provide some sort of transcoding functionality to my VMS w/o using the CPU based encoding that x264 provides. I might just use quicksync (qsv), or nvenc both codecs offer full GPU based transcoding, so I would not have to deal with the x264 license AND I would get better performance. Both methods are described on the FFmpeg page

HWAccelIntro – FFmpeg

Hardware/QuickSync – FFmpeg

Furthermore I could move the transcoding outside of the VMS entirely. This could be done by relaying the RTSP stream to Wowza, Evostream or Nginx-rtmp. All 3 offers transcoding of the ingress to an egress endpoint - usually by using FFmpeg as a stand-alone executable.

(3)
UM
Undisclosed Manufacturer #3
Nov 05, 2019

Yes and those encoding options you mentioned might require a bit more effort than just some boring paperwork, right? And those FFmpeg options you referenced may or may not further infringe on GPL licensing restrictions too. And it's possible those changes were made in later versions, but who knows since the BI binaries are now encrypted.

Second, to answer your question, BI's severe restriction would be the inability to send video to it's mobile and client apps if it didn't have h.264 encoding.

Avatar
Morten Tor Nielsen
Nov 05, 2019
prescienta.com

Lets take your claims in reverse

BI's severe restriction would be the inability to send video to it's mobile and client apps if it didn't have h.264 encoding.

I believe this is just not true, and - frankly - it suggests that you are a little in the dark about how a VMS can (and often do) work. Transcoding is not necessary at all - in fact, I would bet that most VMS's avoid it if possible.

Now, you may not believe that, but let's pretend for a second I have a little experience in writing the code used in VMS clients and servers and maybe know a thing or two about this.

So, if you'll indulge me: If you CAN relay video from a camera - as is - and the video is H.264, I'm sure you'd agree that in this scenario, there's little need for x264, and thus it's likely that x264 was simply included by a mistake because BI just used the default build config.

If it was indeed a mistake, it would be trivial to rip it out.

If transcoding IS needed, then yes, it would be more than just filling out paperwork. But it would also mean that BI would severely handicap its performance compared to everyone else - seeing as they would be using an old software only h264 encoder.

I don't know what you mean by "encrypted binaries".

(2)
UM
Undisclosed Manufacturer #3
Nov 05, 2019

I appreciate you sharing your VMS coding experience with us. I agree that ideally it's better not to use resources to transcode unnecessarily. But when dealing with mobile clients, it's not always possible nor always wanted to relay high bandwidth streams from cameras. And if you're viewing multiple cameras simultaneously, even less so. Thus in those scenarios, transcoding will be needed.

I have used the BI mobile app and I can confirm it does have settings to specify encoding options to limit the data usage bandwidth. So that means it's transcoding, right? In your experience with other VMS mobile apps do they relay the original camera stream? How would they deal with a low bandwidth mobile data connection?

And the BI UI3 client has similar settings as well.

What I mean by encrypted binaries is that the BI exe file is encrypted so it is no longer possible to inspect it for copyright violations.

U
Undisclosed #4
Nov 05, 2019
IPVMU Certified

I have used the BI mobile app and I can confirm it does have settings to specify encoding options to limit the data usage bandwidth. So that means it's transcoding, right? In your experience with other VMS mobile apps do they relay the original camera stream? How would they deal with a low bandwidth mobile data connection?

he’s not saying no to transcoding in general, he’s just saying that if they are using the x264 library to do it then they are at a performance disadvantage to other mainstream VMSes.

which, i would credit him to be an authority on.

the hole in the argument is assuming that therefore they must not be using this library because of its worse performance.

and that it was explicitly called out in the compiler args accidentally. even after being cited by FFMPEG for doing just that.

nor has BI (to my knowledge) made this argument themselves, so...

New discussion

Ask questions and get answers to your physical security questions from IPVM team members and fellow subscribers.

Newest discussions