Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Movies Media The Internet

Bollywood New Releases Available via Video-On-Demand 289

Posted by michael from the never-have-to-leave-the-house dept.
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.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Bollywood New Releases Available via Video-On-Demand More

Bollywood New Releases Available via Video-On-Demand

Comments Filter:

  • What's the name of that movie? (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 18, 2005 @04:53PM (#11401259)

    Excellent! I've been looking for a certain Bollywood movie. In it an East Indian guy saves a girl from a corrupt landholder and at the end they all dance. What was it called again?

  • Hackproof secure content delivery system, eh? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by b00m3rang ( 682108 ) * on Tuesday January 18, 2005 @04:53PM (#11401263)
    Where have I heard that before?

  • Great idea! (Score:3, Insightful)

    by chris09876 ( 643289 ) on Tuesday January 18, 2005 @04:55PM (#11401278)
    This is really a wonderful idea. If only our friends at the MPAA could do the same... ...

  • FYI (Score:3, Informative)

    by zepmaid ( 694112 ) on Tuesday January 18, 2005 @04:56PM (#11401301)
    Bollywood refers to the Hindi film industry in India.
    • yup, "B" for "Bombay"

      • Which is now called Mumbai anyway!

        But Bollywood stuck as a name.

        By the way if you want really interesting and varied Indian movies, often with comparable budgets to Bollywood, try Tamil films.
    • Are they going to be released with English subtitles? If not, they're not interesting to most people here. Also the $5 pricetag for a movie at release time? For that much you might as well go to a theater. Heck, some matinee shows cost little more than that. I think if they charged the for new releases the same $1.99 they're charging for the oldies it might be more interesting, seeing how I've heard that some of their movies are worth looking into. Oh, and what can you get for $5 in India? (As compared to o
      • I agree that the English subtitles will be required. I do think the $5 pricetag is pretty cheap for someone that takes a date to the movie. Two matinee tickets=US $13.50 (in Pheonix, AZ). Then there is the popcorn and soda. If you share it's still US $7. Oh wait ... this is slashdot...we all download our porn^H^H^H^Hmovies for free and mast^H^H^H^watch them by ourselves.

        What can $5 buy in India? Let me tell you, because I am in Chennai on business right now. For $6, three guys ate dinner at the Spensers

  • This is whats needed (Score:4, Insightful)

    by pinkocommie ( 696223 ) on Tuesday January 18, 2005 @04:56PM (#11401306)
    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 :))

    • Some Problems... (Score:2, Insightful)

      by drwav ( 577314 )
      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?

      • Re:Some Problems... (Score:3, Interesting)

        by javaxman ( 705658 )
        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.

        In the case of cable companies, at least, I'm not sure you're entirely correct. Cable companies want to sell the idea of video-over-IP. Go look at http://www.comcast.net/News/GENERAL/ even without a valid login, the right-hand sidebar has a grip of video news sources.

        They want to be able to sell their service as a high-speed premium service, since they'r

    • Er.. cable monopoly? On what? Last I checked there was a myriad of satelite TV services that are competition to cable, both for television and for video on demand. Then you have the movie rental outlets, the dirt-cheap online DVD stores..

      Trust me, there is plenty of competition in the home video market.
  • How will this defeat piracy? Unless the price point is $0.00 an economic reason to steal the movies will exist. Even if the price point was at nothing, there are those who will remain unable to view the films on their desired architecture and will still need to find an 'alternate' method to acquire the fims.

    • Re:Defeating Piracy (Score:5, Insightful)

      by saintp ( 595331 ) <{stpierre} {at} {nebrwesleyan.edu}> on Tuesday January 18, 2005 @05:18PM (#11401648) Homepage
      On the iTunes Music Store, the price per song is not $0.00. Nonetheless, people have turned to the iTMS in droves, because it offers a business model people want. That's why we're constantly raking the *AA over the coals at /.: They refuse to change their business model to reflect the changing technology, so they're trying to legislate their dying business model back into existence, just like they did in the VHS vs. Betamax days.

      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.

    • Re:Defeating Piracy (Score:4, Insightful)

      by nine-times ( 778537 ) <nine.times@gmail.com> on Tuesday January 18, 2005 @05:30PM (#11401830) Homepage
      I think it's true that an effective video-on-demand solution could defeat *some* piracy. If they're offering a good value, some people will be willing to pay *reasonable* prices.

      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.

      • 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, aw

  • Honesty (Score:3, Funny)

    by ancyent_marinere ( 673696 ) on Tuesday January 18, 2005 @04:58PM (#11401337)
    virtually all new major Bollywood and Hollywood movies, including entertainment will be distributed digitally

    This flash of clarity and honest self-assessment is truly refreshing. I for one am glad that they've finally officially recognized that most of their movies are lacking in entertainment value.

  • Beware ye scurvy swabbies! (Score:3, Insightful)

    by snuf23 ( 182335 ) on Tuesday January 18, 2005 @04:59PM (#11401347)
    "simultaneously defeating piracy and generating additional revenue"

    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?

  • If Eye Can See It (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 18, 2005 @05:00PM (#11401375)
    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.
    • If the movie was really something worth seeing then maybe people would actually pay.

      Nothing is better than free in most people's eyes.

    • You missed the point (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Gordo_1 ( 256312 )
      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.
    • How are movies like blair witch project going to compete against pirated movies. Even if the screen is filmed by camcorder, it still gonna be the same quality as theather.
    • They just need to make it inconvient enough to not be worht he hassle.

      If you can pay two or three bucks to download a legit copy of the movie via a blistering fast pipe with easy-to-use, supported software, why would you bother leeching a pirated copy off IRC, at half the speed, then spending 20 minues unraring it, when you don't even know if what you are going to get is decent quality?

      Some people will keep pirating, sure. But mom + pop won't bother, it is not worth the hassle.

      All the ??AA groups want is
      • I agree that it's just a matter of making the convience worth the money, but I think this is actually going to be very hard. Sure, for the first couple of people pirating the movie is going to be slow and awkward, but once it hits any major P2P network, it suddenly becomes easy. This will be more true as bandwidth to the home increses. Add to this BitTorrent and its inevitable children, and we have easy, and fast pirating.
        As for the **AA's lawsuits, this will deter some, but it's also doomed to failure.

  • could be a good application for.. (Score:3, Interesting)

    by trybywrench ( 584843 ) on Tuesday January 18, 2005 @05:03PM (#11401414)
    for bittorent or at the very least the multicast features in routers. ..has multicast caught on yet? seems like i remember reading it was starting to back when i was in college and gave a shit about the future

  • hooray! (Score:4, Funny)

    by X_Bones ( 93097 ) <danorz13@@@yahoo...com> on Tuesday January 18, 2005 @05:03PM (#11401420) Homepage Journal
    Soon virtually all new major Bollywood and Hollywood movies, including entertainment will be distributed digitally [...]

    You mean they're going to start including entertainment with their movies now? Good, because I was getting tired of the non-stop flow of crapfests.

  • Bollywood tidbits (Score:5, Informative)

    by GillBates0 ( 664202 ) on Tuesday January 18, 2005 @05:08PM (#11401487) Homepage Journal
    Quite an informative (but currently misfigured) Bollywood article on wikipedia [wikipedia.org].

    Bollywood's viewership is 3.8 billion vs Hollywood's 3.2 billion [htcricket.com].

    Former Miss World, bollywood queen, and my current heartthrob Aishwarya Rai [aishwarya-rai.com] was featured on 60 mins as the world's most beautiful woman [cbsnews.com] and is among the cast in the next Hollywood James Bond flick.

    • Wrong (Score:2, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward
      The James Bond movies are created by Pinewood studios in England, not Hollywood.

    • Re:Bollywood tidbits (Score:3, Insightful)

      by StikyPad ( 445176 )
      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?
      • Yeah? And how many of those Bollywood films with Hindi dialogue have you seen playing at your local multiplex? Unless they live in an area that has a huge Asian population, how much choice over whether they watch a Hollywood film or a Bollywood film does the typical North American, European or Australasian movie-goer get?

        In fact, how many non-American productions even get a look-in in the US? The odd British or Australian film, perhaps, but I'd bet that 95+ percent of the US movie-going public has a choice
    • Bollywood's viewership is 3.8 billion vs Hollywood's 3.2 billion.

      No, it's not!!

      This is the same dubious PR logic that pegs Super Bowl viewership at a billion and also the Oscars. Just PR nonsense.

      What the bait and switch is, of course, the combined populations of all the countries where Bollywood is marketed, is presented as the "viewership". Leave alone the fact that even in India, a typical Bollywood movie doesn't get more than maybe 100 million to ever watch it. Only the really hyped movies may

  • Dev Anand, the legendary actor and film maker from India, is also amongst the first to collaborate with Cinema on Web (COW).

    That's it, I'm revoking his [anandtech.com] membership from our Anonymous COWherd X club.

  • Forget DRM (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Handpaper ( 566373 ) on Tuesday January 18, 2005 @05:10PM (#11401527)
    Run a subscription BitTorrent server. Charge $20/month for membership. Fingerprint torrent files to prevent them from being used by other IP addresses.* Guarantee quality. Employ professional rippers. Provide back catalogue. Don't bother with custom BitTorrent clients. Point people at Mr Cohen's site [bitconjurer.org]
    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.

    • Fingerprint torrent files to prevent them from being used by other IP addresses.*

      Actually you don't even need to go that far. I know of a few sites that required you to be logged in to their site before their tracker would start sending you a peer list. (by tying your account name and source IP on their end, and having their tracker lookup by ip) Something like that would do just fine for this.

    • First of all, P2P will be required. When the #1 online music store is barely breaking even at $0.99 a pop, imagine the profitability when you have to upload 500 MB instead of 5 but can only sell for $19.99 a pop...

      The bottom line is that the **AA have to write off 10% of their customer base if they ever want to keep the remaining 90%.

      Every network basically relies on core nodes, and leeches. 10% of all players are typically the source for 90% of the trafic. The other 90% depend on those 10%. (Disclaimer:
      • The reason that Apple is making so little money from iTunes is because the RIAA is charging them such exorbitant fees per file. It's not becuase this is how it *has* to be, it just is that way. The RIAA is actually making as much, if not more, from iTunes as they do from selling regular records (CDs and tape).

        I do agree with most of your points, however.
    • Employ Professional Rippers? What, are you saying that the employees at the movie studio, professionals in handling film and converting it with no loss of quality to many different formats should be ignored for some guy running a few programs off the net?
  • simultaneously defeating piracy and generating additional revenue for film studios and producers

    Loosely translated, "f*ck the consumers both coming and going."

  • This is supposed to nullify movie piracy? If anything, it will improve it! No more cams and telescans - only DVD quality warez from now on!

  • Turns out the parents were right after all!

  • Holy COW? (Score:2, Funny)

    by Vombatus ( 777631 )
    In India, cows are sacred

    On slashdot DRM is the antideity

  • I hate Bollywood (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Lord Kano ( 13027 )
    When I worked for a satellite TV providor that I will not name, I had to sell foreign language programming. Including B4U (Bollywood for you), I suspect that it's due to cultural differences. In India, it's the norm for all prices to be subject to negotiation. People used to try to haggle down a set price.

    The first few times it's not bad, when you get you're 80th call, it is supremely annoying.

    When I hear of Bollywood, I think of cheap ass haggling customers.

    LK
    • You should have doubled the initial price, then let them haggle you down to the actual price. Works out for everyone, they get to haggle, you make a sale, you get high commission check to take out rich girl from higher caste to fancy restaurant, everyone dances.
      Roll credits.
  • Make it compelling! You have to give the customers a REASON to want the legit wares over the illegal ones. Right now, the reason they're providing is a stick, when I think a carrot would be far more useful.

    Take for example, Movielink. They're aggressively pursuing college students, probably the worst offenders of them all. I'd be surprised if they're profitable at all, mostly for the following reasons in no particular order:

    1. IE-only site. While this isn't a huge deal in and of itself, when you navi
    • I use Movielink because I don't have to leave my couch to do it, and who needs 5 days for $5? The 700kbps downloads are more than acceptible quality... if I was going to give a scale from 1 being VCD and 10 being DVD, I'd put it at a 7. Firmly better than the old VCR tapes.

  • Isn't this what you want? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Vip ( 11172 )
    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 mid

  • Piracy percentage of Indian Bollywood movies? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by gnalle ( 125916 ) on Tuesday January 18, 2005 @05:49PM (#11402077)
    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?
    • India's movie industry is so huge because until recently, the cinema and the radio were the only options for mass entertainment for much of the country. The poor (but not the very poorest) can afford tickets to film screenings. Bollywood took a hit from TV and now satellite breaking out into every village. They clawed much of this back with exclusive deals with operators like Star TV.

      The price point to engage in piracy remains way too high for most Indians - you either need a TV and VCR or a computer. Ho
  • Cinevents [cinevents.net] is releasing the old Grateful Dead Movie [imdb.com] (IANACinevents flack, but I'm a Deadhead, though I'm not). Solely in a few DLP theaters around the country, in a two-day event to promote the general release of the DVD. When these digital projections are more common/stable, they'll all be distributed over the Net (rather than armored cars delivering film or DVD-Rs). This is the future of all "Hollywood": theatrical releases for a week/end or two "premiere" gala, to promote the sale of the DVD or cable/pay-

Slashdot Top Deals

"Hello again, Peabody here..." -- Mister Peabody

Close