Slashdot Mirror
Bollywood New Releases Available via Video-On-Demand
af_robot writes "There's an announcement of a secure, DivX video-on-demand service for first-run movies, but only for Bollywood movies. 'Each new Bollywood film is released on the public Internet a day before or on the same day of its theatrical release, through piracy on multiple illegal movie download web sites,' said Al Mason, CEO of Cinema on Web. 'Our partnership with DivXNetworks represents the future of entertainment on the Internet. Soon virtually all new major Bollywood and Hollywood movies, including entertainment will be distributed digitally with secure VOD solutions like the one created by DivXNetworks, simultaneously defeating piracy and generating additional revenue for film studios and producers.'"
Where have I heard that before?
This is really a wonderful idea. If only our friends at the MPAA could do the same... ...
I store my recipes online (the way nature intended)
Video on Demand over IP is what will hopefully end the cable monopoly and if it actually gains acceptance with consumers eventually end conent producers monopolies as well. One can hope... (somehow always thought that stuff like this will be taken up in developing countries without as strong corp's as out here in the west. More power to India eh :))
Ahar! Piracy has been defeated! The boats have all been sunk and Davey Jones locker has been secured for Bollywood! You'll walk the plank!
What is it that makes me think that maybe, just maybe a few illegitimate downloads will still occur after this system goes up?
Sometimes my arms bend back.
So can a recording device. Whether they like it or not, the pirates are always going to have a way to circumvent the anti-piracy schemes. I think the industries would be better off focusing on quality that can't be duplicated by a DVcammed AVI or movie screen. There are always going to be jackasses who will prefer to not pay and watch a shitty copy of a movie as opposed to paying to see the real shitty version of the same movie. If the movie was really something worth seeing then maybe people would actually pay.
Profit.
The Bollywood studios have an opportunity to embrace the technology so feared by their Western cousins. Their production costs tend to be much lower, their business model more fluid. If they get this right, they could ride the bandwidth wave into the next decade, paying less for distribution than the MPAA pay for toilet tissue. Let's hope they can provide a much-needed example
*This is a speed-bump only, but I would imagine that people who have paid for content are less likely to distribute it further than those who have not.
Loosely translated, "f*ck the consumers both coming and going."
Do not touch -Willie
And, just like then, they are failing because of innovative new content delivery systems like this. Yes, some people will always steal movies because it's free. Most people -- say, those who haven't written their own BitTorrent client in the past year -- will move to a system like this, where for a small fee (less than the $20 required for two at the theatres or a purchased DVD), they can view the movie they want, and don't have to wait three days until they get it downloaded, only to find out that they got the cut-down version released in Shanghai, shot by some kid with a camcorder in his hoodie and subtitled by Altavista's babelfish.
People will happily pay for convenience; they will not, however, pay exorbitant fees for convenience. Bollywood is acknowledging that, and is hitting pirates back by competing with them. No one currently competes with pirates, which is part of why they're so successful. Now, their "z3r0-d4y \/1dZ" are getting pwn3d by Bollywood's -1-day vids. It's official: video pirates are going to be Bollywood's bitches, and it's going to hurt piracy to get screwed by that big, singing Indian cock.
End piracy? No. You're just as delusional as the *AA if you think there's a magic bullet to end piracy. A positive step towards ending it? Fuck yes.
Another one bites the dust
Whereas American films consist of:
85% explosions and car chases
10% sex
5% product placement
Who provides the vast majority of broadband? Cable companies.
Who don't like it when you use your expensive broadband for anything more than web surfing and checking email? All ISPs, many of which are Cable Companies.
Major conflict of intrest and they could kill two birds with one stone by outright blocking sites like this.
The question is: will they and can anyone or anything stop them?
It can be hard to find reliable sources for pirated material. If it's easy to find, it's usually going to get shut down. Downloading of P2P, you don't always know if a file is complete and free of corruption. It's hard to tell if you're downloading what you mean to be downloading. Even if it is, you don't know what kind of quality you're getting. All told, it's sort of messy and annoying and time-consuming process. And it's a messy, annoying, time-consuming process that might get you in legal trouble.
If someone can make a simple, easy, painless process, and they charge a nominal fee, some people who might otherwise have pirated may be willing to pay the price to save themselves the headache. For example, I know people who have pirated far less audio since the iTMS opened because they found shopping on iTMS to be an easier and more pleasant (and less frightening) experience than Kazaa, and therefore worth the $1/song.
Not that it "defeats" piracy, but it's stopping *some* of the piracy from happening.
I personally go for the huge screen and surround sound experience.
Who doesn't have surround sound in their home?
In fact I will say unequivically that the basic, relatively low end surround sound system I have in my entertainment room sounds drastically better than what I've heard at any theaters (which usually have such delicious features as "blown speaker rattling away"). Video wise I find the almost constant lack of focus in theaters (staffed by expert 16 year olds that would be rather off trying to score a boob feel), coupled with the fact that the projector physically bounces around (yeah a micro-number of theaters have digital projectors, but most have large physical contraptions that cause the projected image to bounce around by inches), highly irritating. While it's "big", the quality of the video is generally terrible.
Add to that some woman who keeps kicking on the back of your chair, the pack of teens intoxicated with gang power being loud and hoping for some lone wolf to confront them, and the important guy who has to receive cell phone calls (he might need to do an emergency phone meeterectomy). Oh, I shouldn't forget grossly overpriced food and drinks, long lines, and crowded little chairs. Wow, what an experience.
I would definitely rather stay home, or go to a friend's house, and the only draw of theaters nowadays is the artificial limit that it only plays there for the first X months.
(as a sidenote I have always thought "luxury theaters" could be a draw - theaters with actually good video and sound, a good seating arrangement, and with staff that actually enforce good behaviour [kicking out the asswipes]. I would happily pay significantly more for such a venue)
I don't believe they're claiming their DRM scheme is uber-impossible to break or that you can't take a videocam or other analogue copy of the material if you're so inclinsed, but that by providing a convenient *MEDIUM* for "the message", they've removed one of the primary factors that make piracy an attractive option. Thus this helps defeat piracy.
Ok, one guarantee is there will always be freeloaders. Why pay, if you can go through some sort of effort and get it for free? And if the quality is lower, oh well...
To me $5 is a good deal, especially if it's playing in the theatres when I'm watching it at home. This is reasonable. Here, if I go with a couple of friends it's $36 to get in, let alone popcorn, etc.
$5, you're at home, no talking around you, no one getting up blocking your view. If it's a LoTR type long movie, have a pee-break in the middle of it by pausing it! This is the same price range as a movie rental around here (from the big chains, Blockbuster, VHQ, Roger's Video, etc).
Isn't this what everyone has been clamoring for? Cheap price, easy access? DRM? It's $5, let them DRM it all they want! It's not like you get to leave the theatre (which is really what we are comparing it to) with a movie after you've watched it! It's the same price as a movie rental, treat it as such.
If someone really really wants to spend a day downloading it, burning it, finding out it's not good quality, then finding a better quality one, then downloading that one for a day, then burning it, then finding out the audio sucks...ad nauseum,
let them. I'll spend the $5 knowing I'm getting a good quality release I can trust the first time around.
And $1-$2 for older releases, that's pretty good too. Movie rentals are much higher than $2 each.
Vip
I always wondered about the following: Counting the 3.8 billion people that watch Bollywood movies. How many of these will watch pirated movies. The article refers to the rich people who can afford to download a movie from the internet, but how about a farmers living in remote places. Can these people afford to pay for official versions of the movies. Which percentage of the income of the Bollywood film industry comes from selling movies (or music) to farmers?
Not that it "defeats" piracy, but it's stopping *some* of the piracy from happening.
Exactly. The MPAA could do itself a favor and look at commercial, off-the-shelf software way of doing business.
Is there piracy? Yes. Are companies still in business? Yes.
For sake of argument, ten percent of the population will always steal whatever isn't nailed down, and ten percent will always buy things legitimately. It is the hearts and minds of the other eighty percent that the MPAA has to win over.
Hollywood, awash in money and talent, should be ashamed that Bollywood has bested them in the online distribution market.
Bollywood's viewership is 3.8 billion vs Hollywood's 3.2 billion.
In other news, Britney's fanbase is probably in the billions, while Beethoven's is probably in the low millions. I'm sure you weren't trying to insinuate anything, but the trolls on iMDB try to use the same logic to say that one films sucks because another did better in the box office. Viewership means little.. how many of those 3.8 billion actually have a choice of what to watch?
https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere
An AC has replied to you with a link pointing to proof that in fact Bollywood IS more popular than you think.
But What you said is not true. In japan, South Indian films (especially Tamil) are extremely popular. Especially films by a particular actor called Rajani Khanth, whos is treated extremely well in Japan, and his films often sell more than hollywood over there.
Here in UK we have seen a big increase in Bollywood style films, and its not just because of the large indian population. Bend it like beckham earned the title among the population of "Best British comedy" of 2002. Monsoon wedding and the recent Bride and prejudice was also well recieved.
True Bollywood films such as Devdas and Mohabaitten were showing in "normal" (non-indian) cinemas. The film Taal was the inspiration for Andrew Llyod Webbers Bombay Dreams show.
The Bollywood composer A.R Rahman, is going to create the musical score for the Lord of the Rings West End show.
Bollywood has affected commerce in the UK too. Clothing shops now stock Bollywood style dresses and clothing made for the "white english" market. Even McDonalds sometimes does an Indian Special, where they add Spicey Lambburgers, and Spicy Fries.
a LOT of bollywood films ARE having significant scenes being shot in the UK, with the UK government trying to encourage this further.
Maybe in the US its not so big, but look out of your borders, before you come up with a statement like that
Have a nice day!