Producers blocks TamilRockers with the help of ISPs


Cinema Producers have blocked Tamil Rockers with the help of ISPs. This article is written in Tamil.

For those who don’t read tamil, “Singam 3 is a tamil movie released last week in theatres. It was live streamed in facebook using Facebook Live also the movies are distributed as torrent file. The producers of the movie have approached the court and has got orders to block or ban tamilrockers website with the help of ISPs. They also claim that it’s a huge loss for producers to release the movie in Internet and through advertisements websites like tamilrockers also generate revenue for themselves by utilizing the work of others.”

I would like to know individuals stand and if as a collective organization if we have to take a stand what should it be? Because there are two parts involved which are contradicting each other.

  1. Science & Technological Progress and advancement which allows free flow of knowledge but are only struck with centralized control and thus abused.
  2. Ethical points of using others work for a free ride.


Technology can neither be good, nor be bad, not even neutral
Melvin Kranzberg

This is a similar kind of situation of Hollywood’s reaction against the Torrent Tracker servers, to impede illegal sharing of copyrighted movies.

Technology for sharing is not a problem. AFAIK, i have not seen any reactionary effort to torrent technology itself. On the other hand, it is a legal attach on the phenomenon of “illegal sharing”, which was always present in Ciinemas.

Torrenting has remarkably provided a new way of sharing stuff - pretty much in a easier and p2p fashion with less effort and inertial to participate in sharing. Thus the same can be handled by the current Cinema/Movie industry to embrace such technology and underpin with their financial flow.

Personally i see it as a transition problem, that erupts very often at places where social mass is more concentrated - and people do fly around to download movies via torrent, which is economic and the technology never even tries to control the copying - which is what people wanted. We do share stuff when we like it and would usually recommend it to others to enjoy it. That is the crux of sharing. And torrent makes it easy.

Those who do not understand that, usually target Torrent tech. & policies surrounding it.

The current industrial infrastructure seems to not adapt and embrace the technological facilities that ICT is allowing them, because the 50+ year old infrastructure have stabilized its financial architecture, so that the people who manages, funds it, invests in it, do see it as a formal way to create art and credit artists, while taking their share from the turn over. All these years it has strengthened its marketing strategies for a non-internet aware society.

With a sudden (yeah ! sudden for the infrastructure), and quick embrace by the black markets(always they look for alternatives), have made them go hay wire and block their critical thinking towards how to use such technology for their advantage. Being said that, there is also much less adaption of crowd funding strategies, micropayment services even with the advancement of online payment, push of digital economy from the finan. insti. by the movie industry. On the whole, the movie industry repulses, to adapt, change and advance. Why ?

I personally think, that humans being the operators of the infrastructure, they might not want this disruption ever happen, as it necessarily distributes the financial flow, and addresses transparency & accountability, from the makers of the film. When such information is available, we expect proper distribution of wealth towards all workers(technicians, lightsmen, organizers, managers,… behind the screen stuff) in making of the film - according to some standard. This makes the system adapt towards a kind of socially auditable system, which eventually breaks the central control and financial flow.

Furthermore, the payment(ticket costs) from the customers, would now be not based on the “Theatrical facility”, but based on the real quality of the film(story + acting behavior + art + screenplay + … so on). Atleast for the internet viewers.

Still the way to regulate the “copy & share” mechanism is still debatable through technological means - in a way that does not hinders the liberty to share (may be time based expiry of copyright i.e., the file must expire its copyright mechanism & allow sharing when it reaches the UTC day/time & expected marginal turn over claimed during the pledge during crowd funding)…

The main problem here is not that the people share stuff, but it is the subjugation that they experience from the industry and law, that allows perpetuation in copyright that pushes them to purchase the film with copyrights with a different financial scale, and distribution control. Who decides that the work in art to have a perpetuated gravitated copyright. This is the usual draconian thing which i do not want you to bore with.

To end with, movie industry has to recognize that sharing encapsulates the best way to propagate about the movie, and social networks do that already for them. They now need not care about the special marketing nuances and cliches, if the movie is really a work of art rather than a conventional money in money out mechanism.

One more thing i have to mention, is that one can notice that there is not much incentive who decide to do documentary films on social, economical, wild life issues in this country. Why do you think so, if the industry is so booming with surplus business potential, why is this partiality. Is it not ethical to support them publicly or privately ? I think crowdfunding and torrenting are the ones that supports those movie makers.

Personal touch : C1, C2, C3, … C n-1, Cn … all sucks - it reeks with police state propaganda… it is shitty.


Hi, as we prefer and choose Free software and open source as our alternatives like Source code should be open and so other people can learn more stuff and for enhancing our development in our technology. But a moviemaker works hard to produce a movie and he thinks that tamilrockers and torrent are easily releasing those movies over the internet which leads to decreases the value of that movie. From their point of view, they are expecting a outcome for which they work for in that movie.


so, if they are not ready to change their financial structures and embrace new technologies, then they have to face it, because black markets will always chase after technology to find a better alternative to hook it up to generate their income by some means, even if it is through internet.


@kaathi524 this is what @31gane is trying to point out. When you say movie maker, whom are you actually pointing? The producer (or) Director + actors + lightsmen + cameramen + everyone who does real work to create it?

His point is that the movie makers or creators are failing to embrace technological advancement and are taking a luddites approach here. Internet, Web and p2p file sharing like torrents makes the distribution of content very easy and in fact it makes it viral most of the times (without which we wouldn’t have watched series like Game of Thrones, Mr. Robot, Breaking Bad, etc.,). The movie creators should think about new forms of funding & distribution as a whole. I remember Kamalhassan’s attempt to release Vishwaroopam in DTH and Cheran’s attempt of C2H, where instead of releasing the movie in theatres, they delivered a DVD directly to residents for a price lower than cinema theatre tickets. He also faced an issue of piracy from local cable operators using those DVD’s to stream it over cable network. Well yes, streaming over cable network is much more scalable and reaches wider audience than how far DVD’s can reach people at any given time. Instead of crying foul, I think, they should have thought about utilizing these networks too.

We as consumers should embrace these new efforts, for reasons @31gane has pointed out as well as these new forms should also invite consumers to also be creators and thus breaks the barrier of entry into cinema for others.

I see, Torrent and p2p are essential fight that keeps on eroding the existing infrastructure until those values provided by p2p and torrents are accepted as a norm by the society as a larger social good.


with the rise of drm - restrictiction, distribution poisoning as we know, also on the other hand searching for alternatives of open content sharing with proper feedback incentives would balance out the advantage of each other.

open music model, and the crowd sourcing model might help better. Also afaik, not seen any cooperative models in music or film - arts - industry. As the story creation, story boarding, execution, distribution and consumption involves huge economics, not only change in financial model is necessary but also change in organization structures of labour.

for example, producers (capital investors) are primary monopolizers, followed by actors, directors, musicians. Rest is shared by costuming, makeups, engineering technicians & non-artistic labourers involved in location mgmt, lighting, logistics, food supply, etc… so on

while distributing the artistic content, credits are equivalent to a meta information. Most of the time it is not given much important to the user. WHY?

For a consumer, the cinema ticket is already paid and there is no reason for their mindset to care for the credits. right ?

I think, a movie’s/music album’s value cannot be measured easily. Its not balanced now. We pay first then only we are allowed to complain. It varies from individual to individual. Rs. 120 is kind of pseudo standardization pushed by the producer-distributor monopoly.

Furthermore, deriving profit even after reaching its financial spendings and years after is clearly an artiscially and economically unethical play. Some art does not age and some does age. Depending upon the content the value changes. (emottional and temporal).

Even then, it is pretty much balanced, to get financial returns until the desired profit is reached… say 2X than investment (if at all the remaining profit is shared equally for all labourers based on some agreement).

What reason does the producers or other monopolizers have the reap the benefits even after reaching a reasonable capital goal. ??? What makes them(actors, musicians,) previleged than other labourers ? Difference in intellectual skill is OK. But economic inequality represents that the field reeks with all kind of injustice.


On one hand we have beautiful information replication, redistribution technology that effectively eradicates distribution monopoly in theatrical chains and all.

On other hand, we have dormant rock of financial models that never want to practice economic liberty.

friction 1: we have DRMs, that would result in monopoly, spillage to other fields for creep.
friction 2: we have govs, courts, institutions, industries chase after people who help content share.
friction 3: we know that protection by law is nullified when something cannot be technically patched.

Independent musicians, directors, story writers, … are no the rise now more than past decades. They like such internet mediums (tubes and torrents). But cannot to everything by themselves when the project becomes huge. Only the process which they can handle with a computer can do. Scale of Economics comes into play. :slightly_smiling:

The GOAL is minimize the distance between the MAKER & READER/LISTENER/VIEWER. This is necessary to attract more people for education and learning too.

What is ? the difference between a sucky movie in a luxurious theatre and a docu-feature movie in my home.

Is it ? possible to combine torrenting + revenue based encryption ?
i.e, for distribution by internet, torrent can be used, but for viewing the content encryption is required. That is, make a key for every user who subscribes(payment involved) to the movie accessed through torrent and say viewed by popcorn time player. but it sounds like DRM again.

The catch is, this encryption mechanism can stay alive only as long as people pay for the requested financial returns properly audited - meta information will come along with the file shared. Yes this comes with centralization.

However, something with blockchaining can be devised.

It is similar to post crowd funding. We have a bill of labour, material… with pre crowd funding, the team can initiate execution and continue as long as people fund them. After post editing, people would be funding the required benefits (audited by unions of labour) to pay well the labour. Its a kind of balance sheet.

Then after reaching the required benefits and incentives from the post funding from encryption, the encryption has no longer has value in it and the movie is now avaialble at free of cost to share in internet and it lives ever happily.


  1. Declare genre, Creative Team
  2. PREFUND => Crowd Funding + established artists direct Donation
  5. AUDIT => audit Budget spent, benefits desired, bill, balance sheet, …
  6. RELEASE => Distribute (Meta {content, budget} + Revenue bomb Encrypting + Torrenting)

I do can remember : Radical, Critical and Progressive, constructive changes are always impeded, harassed by good intentions reasoned to save the current stable benefits reaped off from the established structures and models.

Please do listen to recent bram cohen’s interview podcast in steal this show…