Slashdot Mirror
Visually Impaired Gamer Sues Sony
An anonymous reader writes "A visually impaired gamer has sued Sony because game products allegedly violate the Americans With Disabilities Act. 'According to the suit, Sony ignored repeated requests through postal mail and e-mail to come up with reasonable modifications to its games to make them more accessible.' This suit seems to be a combination of National Federation of the Blind v. Target, which complained of inaccessibility to the visually disabled (which settled for $6 million) and Martin v. PGA Tour, Inc., where the US Supreme Court ruled a disabled golfer was entitled to a golf cart where one was not already allowed as a reasonable accommodation. If the plaintiff wins, Sony will have to make 'reasonable accommodations' which are not an 'undue financial burden.' In my humble opinion, providing access for the disabled is not only the right thing to do but it will generate more profit for Sony."
I'd hate to to think what this guy would do when he realizes that cameras don't pander to the visually impaired market. On the other hand, I'm blind in one eye so maybe I can take a leaf out of his book and and sue camera companies anyway for products that don't suit my particular physical situation and finally realize that "??? profit" step.
I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
No braille version.
Next he can sue auto manufacturers for not making cars accessible to the blind.
I was born with a crippled left hand making it impossible for me to play an immensely popular game, Guitar Hero.
Should I sue because they didn't accommodate for people with my particular disability? Plenty of people are missing limbs. Why aren't they in an uproar over Guitar Hero?
and what somebody sued and got 6 million dollars from the PGA? I don't think Lee Travino's putting challenge has anywhere near the popularity of Guitar Hero.
I'm an operating-system-ly impaired gamer. I'm using Debian to run my computer. I demand that all Windows games be immediately released for Linux.
I'm blind and I fully support this guy. Those racing games are really hard when you can't see where you're driving. I think I'll follow his lead and sue the DMV for discrimination.
I wish they'd stop trying to endlessly make the controllers more efficient (= smaller & fiddlier).
Its bad enough trying to use a mouse or joystick with all the extra buttons they add.
Any kind of dexterity affecting disability makes most of them impossible to use.
A gamepad with 2 sticks, 20 buttons on all 6 sides and motion control is just impossible.
In my humble opinion, providing access for the disabled is not only the right thing to do but it will generate more profit for Sony.
That's a fine-sounding liberal opinion, but when did accessibility to a video game, which presupposes a minimum level of vision, become a privilege mandated by the Federal Government? We are not talking about an essential service here, access to government records, we aren't even talking about a visually-impaired person being unable to order products online. It's a video game. Entertainment, no more.
Look, sometimes we can't do fun things that we'd like to do, but it doesn't mean we should start hiring lawyers. There was a time in my life when I'd go rock-climbing (only a few times, but it was fun and I was in pretty good physical shape back then.) Almost thirty years later and I wouldn't even bother trying: totally out of my league now, having been at a desk job for almost that long. So, that being the case, should I start complaining that rock faces should be made "accessible" to me in my "impaired" condition?
Please.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
So are deaf people going to sue Sony for not signing bands that cater to the hearing impaired?
I'm all for promoting access for the disabled but there's just some things that can't be done no matter how many lawsuits you file.
Kwisatz Haderach
Sell the spice to CHOAM
This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
I doubt it'll provide more profit for Sony. But if Sony lose and are forced to mod their MMORPGs, I think it may mean more profit for gold farmers. Some of the mods are likely to make it easier for bots to navigate and do stuff :).
Somehow, I doubt it would be easy to enable people who are BLIND to play video games. :/
After years of not using a signature, I am going to make one to say the following: Fuck Beta
Why are game companies, or any companies for that matter, required to make every product accessible? I can understand government services, both because of their purpose but also because of the fact that they are paid for by public money (and generally don't actually need to be un-accessible), but products of corporations? If this guy wants to complain to the company and then not buy their products, fine. In fact, that's really the best way to deal with the issue.
Most screen readers can parse HTML so that visually impaired users can access web sites, as long as they properly write the web site to standards (not making the whole thing in Flash, for example).
It'd make sense if game developers got behind publishing a common API for all games, so that a user can just install a single program that'd give the proper clues to disabled gamers for every compatible game.
I think it's great when companies provide their products in services in a manner that makes them more accessible/usable to people with disabilities. However some modifications may give normally-abled people an unfair advantage or disadvantage. If I hide in the shadows it's rather unfair that other people simply have to turn on the "make everyone extra bright" button and now I'm seen.
It may be an issue of the game designers being afraid of ruining gameplay balance by implementing accessibility features now, as an afterthought.
It's been going downhill ever since that Tommy kid successfully sued Bally in the 70s...
This guy's the limit!
It is dark. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
>_
Takes a lot of practice and you will have to develop some calluses, and there are some legal challenges to playing in public, but I guess you could sue over that.
Knowing Sony, they might also consider the mass slaughter of the physically impaired to be a financially responsible action.
On one hand, it's Sony.
:)
On the oth- Wait, never mind.
... Sue woman?
Wiilchair Fit?
The Americans with Disabilities Act states that, "No individual shall be discriminated against on the basis of disability in the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of any place of public accommodation by any person who owns, leases (or leases to), or operates a place of public accommodation."
This has kept a generation of lawyers employed by arguing over the definition of "public accommodation". The strict interpretation limits it to only physical places, which would rule out games. There have been many court battles over expanding the definition. This particular suit, if I read the various summaries correctly (IANAL), would be one of the more far reaching stretches of the definition and could have a significant impact on how much the ADA covers.
In short, it could fund an entire new generation of lawyers by expanding the ADA to an almost unlimited scope. Blind or not, I hope this guy goes down in flames.
For reference: http://www.law.duke.edu/shell/cite.pl?50+Duke+L.+J.+297
Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
To the impaired individual 'reasonable accommodations' means anything possible should be done, I have heard people make this exact statement. For the game company it would be defined as reasonable expectation of being profitable. Adding text reading code might be possible but it may or may not be profitable given the limited number of sales it would generate. A braille screen might be technically possible and to the impaired person fall under 'reasonable accommodations' but there is no way it would be profitable to produce. Even writing the added code for a third party add-on would likely cost more than sales would generate. Due to the vague and all inclusion wording of the law any such cases are doomed to court which costs the companies money and raises the prices of games. If they wish to apply the law to in this case visually oriented media like games standards have to set set, period. It's unfair to expect game companies to face litigation due to poorly written law.
When I first read the summary, I was thinking "well, don't most all video game companies do that these days" with the specific example of the excellent CC in Valve games.
Then I read your comment, and was thinking "what an insensitive clod."
Then I realize that this was for VISUALLY impaired, and proceeded to think "WTF!!!!!"
So why is he specifically targeting Sony? Why not all the video game manufacturers? In the end, Sony will agree to make some trivial modification to some game to meet this guys requirements, maybe like a "high contrast mode". And then...
The lawyers will once again win.
http://www.wow.com/2009/07/06/visually-impaired-players-the-unseen-inhabitants-of-azeroth/
What if you were to play around with the frets with your right hand and mod the controller out to replace the strum bar with two foot pedals? (A bit of a roundabout solution, but Its better than the other replies you've gotten...) What I'd really like to see is the content of these letters that he's sent to Sony. Theres another article linked inside of this one about a guy who is blind and helps other blind people play commercial games through screen readers, surround sound, and menu guides. He's even gone so far as to send mail to developers and publishers to suggest how they might better help the blind. That could be the key difference between these two. If this guy just sent a bunch of letters about how "OMGZ UR GAME ISH HARD FUR BLIND PEEPS" and then giggled to himself how they didn't respond to him, then he's just being an idiot trying to get some cash out of this. If Sony's been ignoring valid suggestions on how to help and giving him the silent treatment, then he might have a case.
A visually impaired reader is suing Barnes and Noble because their books are inaccessible to the blind.
Audio books are available, as are books in braille as do book readers for PRF/kindle books.
Do any of these book printing services offer the printing of braille books? Wouldn't that be a good service for Amazon/BaN to offer?
A hearing impaired man is suing the RIAA for producing music that the deaf can't hear.
There are alternative ways to experience the music (like visualisations and the Mr Holland's Opus thing).
A paraplegic is suing Harley Davidson because their motorbikes are difficult to ride without the use of your arms.
There are controls to allow you to control most vehicles
A person with learning difficulties is suing Canonical because they can't figure out how to operate the terminal.
Canonical does ship software to aid in using the terminal and the software itself is very customizable.
While I agree its a silly lawsuit.. maybe Sony could do more to make things easier for people with disabilities.
High contrast visuals/Gamma override for all output.
Controllers for people with reduced dexterity.
They shouldn't have to do everything but shouldn't they at least do a little bit?
Man, I hate all this discrimination. Do you even realize how frustrating it must be for the blind to go to such an essential place such as the the movies? I mean... oh, wait.
I am confused, since when has it been a Right to play video games?
At some point people are just going to have to take a step back and re-evaluate some of this politically correct nonsense. When someone with impaired VISION can successful sue for not being able to play a VIDEO game something is seriously wrong. You have to draw the line somewhere.
And as for the "generate more profit", no, no they wont. The only way the will generate more profit is if the costs to implement the modifications are offset by increased sales. I doubt there are enough people in this situation to make it worth the effort.
This got me think though, are there theaters that play movies with subtitles for the hearing impaired? I could see profit from that.
I can't wait until a deaf person sues Apple over iTunes.
maybe already someone written something very similar to this but, what esactly this person wants sony to do.. make the contrast higher so he can see the images on the screen, or the characters ridicully huge so it can get this runnning for him?, its a video game, a machine designed to work in a way its not a service by its own, and as someone said up there.. its pure entertainment, whats next people suing just becouse they aren't fast enough with the buttons.. or the rpgs are too complex to solve the puzzles, couse they don't give instructions for the combos on the fighting games?.. i know my comparative isn't as strong but well lets just say i think people should try not to be that whinny, and honestly im curious to know how this visually impaired person would solve the problem if he was sony himself.
geez.
Many large organizations today seem to use their customer-facing staff solely as a means for getting rid of people who phone up to complain, or to request things or make enquiries. This isn't necessarily the fault of the staff in question, or the intention of the organization. Yet somehow things get structured so that it becomes the function of the support staff. For instance, I suspect that under-staffing the help desk or measuring performance by calls "resolved" as opposed to customers satisfied tends to push things towards a "When customers call, make them go away, otherwise they're stopping us talking to our customers" mode of operation.
The other problem is that it's pretty easy in a large organization (or even a small, highly bureaucratic one) to get into situations where large swathes of problems are "somebody else's responsibility", or likely "nobody in particular". Much as I dislike the idea of a work environment where inappropriate work is dumped on people, or staff are lumped with resolving things they're not responsible for, at the end of the day the buck ought to stop *somewhere*, even if it's just a customer service supervisor writing back. If a customer has a real and legitimate question to which there is *an* answer but there's *nobody* in the organization whose job description allows or requires them to answer it, you're doing something wrong. It's not possible to satisfy all people all of the time but I think most organizations can do a heck of a lot better than they do!
In this instance, the allegation is that Sony ignored requests made of them. Did they ignore them outright, did they fob off the (potential?) customer, or did they make the effort to respond but the gamer didn't like the answer anyhow? Sony may have done everything as well as they possibly could in this case but they should nonetheless evaluate whether engaging more with the gamer in question could have saved them a court case.
Some of the claims in the case could seem a bit dubious but as the article points out, various other companies have at least allowed 3rd parties to develop plugins that assist disabled gamers. So it's not like anybody's saying Sony must develop (for instance) a braille interface to WoW on their own budget.
The Americans With Disabilities Act was written so loosely that there are so many of these litigious bullshitteries going on nation wide. It is basically a form of extortion facilitated by poorly written 'laws'.
We need reform on the ADA as soon as possible! Locally, a predatory woman has sued over 80 local businesses (this is her JOB now), represented by a lawyer who has sued over 250.
I hope sony lobbies to get reform.
I say all of this with the great respect for the disabled and the true intent of the ADA. It is the exploit of the act that bothers me so much.
In this case, Sony makes visual video games and a guy who can't see thinks Sony OWES him a game. That's like being allergic to peanut butter and suing Reeses for not making you a hazelnut cup. THEY DONT OWE YOU A HAZELNUT CUP!
This act has been a complete sham since its adoption and is a permanent backdoor to special treament for anyone who can hire a doctor to say they are disabled.
Time to end these government-sponsored special privileges. We tried it, its bogus, scrap it.
As a blind person I'd just like to say this is a load of crap. While you can make first person shooters like quake accessible see www.agrip.org.uk the changes needed to do so make it a totally different game. Face it there are some things you can't do while blind, these include first person shooters, being a fighter pilot, and driving. I'd just like to point out that the NFB does not represent most blind people, although there so vociferous in there opinion that blind people have to be able to do everything sited people do that they have a bigger impact then they deserve. Maybe I should spend all my time finding new corporations to sue so I can get on the front page of Slashdot instead of trying to live a normal life, going to work, and contributing to society? I'd love to see an NFB person respond and try to justify this.
Can I sue Sony (or any major game publisher) for not releasing any game that would be even remotely interesting to me?
PlusFive Slashdot reader for Android. Can post comments.
my perception of somebory that is "visually impaired" is somebody that doesnt see very well, but is not blind. if you can see, but not very well, buying a beamer would be the obvious solution instead of suing Sony.
anyway, if the changes for Sony would be reasonable and it wouldn't affect the quality of the product in a negative way, i'd say why not? do it!
Privacy is terrorism.
Sony should sue him back for his refusal to buy a bigger TV.
He gave them a list of suggestions, if they are reasonable then maybe they need to comply. They point is companies should make a reasonable effort to make thier products accessable to the handicapped. I'm not sure of the law but in principle it is the right thing to do. Of course if what he's asking is very difficult then it makes sense for Sony to say "We can't do that". This is very different then him just suing because he can't do something. People above talked about camera's, driving, rock climbing. Imagine if he came up with a practical way for a blind person to drive safely and he suggested it and the car companies refused.
My initial feeling is that this sounds like nonsense: the word "video" in "video game" pretty much implies that vision is required. However, maybe he's asking for something that's not too unreasonable: a better brightness control, or a high contrast mode, or a way to limit extraneous detail, or something that might not be incredibly hard to include as a part of all games, and that would open up the whole are of video games to people previously unable to experience them. I'd have sort of a hard time arguing against that.
Sure, it is the right thing to do if Sony chose to do it. The wrong thing to do is force people/companies to bow to your will. That is the opposite of liberty and freedom.
The suit also specifies the ways in which other companies have made their games accessible. For instance, Blizzard Entertainment's World of Warcraft allows the use of third-party mods in its game, which has led to the creation of several programs to include accessibility aids in the game. The suit also mentions Pin Interactive's action adventure PC game Terraformers, saying high-contrast 3D graphics modes, an audio compass, and voice-over detailing items collected in the game all serve to make the game more accessible.
Sony could make it more accessible at little cost, but they haven't, and the market isn't about to compel them. Applying the ADA really doesn't sound unreasonable. He's not asking for drastic changes or anything:
The suit, which doesn't mention SOE games by name but appears to focus on massively multiplayer online titles, requests the addition of visual cues to point gamers to their destinations for gamers with "disability impaired visual processing."
That's not difficult to implement - Sony should have done this on their own.
First person shooter for the blind? Maybe descriptive audio?
"Left. Left. Up. Up. Down. Right. Shoot. Headshot."
That's just ridiculous.
The idea that someone is entitled to play a specific video game is completely idiotic. While it might be nice for developers to make games more accessible, there's a cost to doing so and, in this case, it's highly unlikely the increase in sales would offset the cost. Next we'll have people suing because the game isn't released with a language pack for certain languages.
I think this is pathetic and a load of crap. Why should they be required to make games accessible? My solution to the problem is to:
A: play in a low resolution so that text is easily readable.
B: Stick to playing PC games, where I can modify the game files to increase the fonts if necessary.
This is one of the reasons I avoid HD games. On a standard resolution TV, the developers *can't* make the fonts tiny because it would be unreadable by even perfectly sighted folk.
It is also worth noting that I am no Sony fanboy. I classify them as a malware vendor for both the rootkit and Securom.
"In my humble opinion, providing access for the disabled is not only the right thing to do but it will generate more profit for Sony"
I hope you never complain about the price of video games, because frivolous lawsuits like this only drive up the cost of games. I honestly wonder how much cheaper everything would be in America if we could get rid of all the frivolous lawsuits.
I wonder if, given the shrinking US consumer market and growth of the East, there will come a point where the corporations apply 'A * B * C = X' and simply stop selling goods in America because it is cheaper to do that than to pay for the frivolous lawsuits and patent licensing.
"I bless every day that I continue to live, for every day is pure profit."
Simple, cheqp, and quick solution - move the servers outside the USofA.
Why did Helen Keller fail her written English Composition class?
Her mother ironed her homework.
Why did Helen Kellers' dog jump over the cliff?
You would too if your name was "Msaghhhhaa!"
Seriously though, the question I have is would adding certain cues or mods give sighted people an extra advantage? If so, then you'll find a lot of people quickly using them to cheat.
Or he can do like one woman I saw who works with a special high-contrast VERY big screen that magnified a portion of what was shown on the other screen. If that works reasonably well, then it's not up to Sony to get such a setup for him.
More disabled embryos should be aborted then we wouldn't this problem.
I am totally blind, and I have played video games, specifically Punch Out, so I can definitively say that it is possible, at least to play some games. Whether or not this lawsuit is justified depends on many facts that haven't been revealed. If this guy is expecting the game to be substantially altered, then I think he's wrong, and the ADA (based on my reading) would not support his position. However, if he is simply asking Sony to add some small features to the game that would make it more accessible, then I think his suit is reasonable and he should win. My understanding of the ADA is that it doesn't allow you to sue to change the laws of the universe. It just allows you to sue when a company does not provide reasonable accommodation when it is within their power to reasonably do so. Unfortunately, the definition of reasonable is quite relative.
Now, all disabilities aside and with respect to those with them, really just one thought pops into my mind.. How would one expect a blind person to play a VIDEO (as in visual) game? I mean they can't see whats happening, can't see where to go/aim, or see other visual clues that's in most games now a days.. short of brain implants, I just don't see this as feasible with current tech.
PPN
There's a nasty problem with the "undue financial burden" clause.
See, it doesn't matter if your business would lose a bunch of money in providing reasonable accomodation so long as the amount of money is small compared to total revenues. So, if it cost Sony 10 million/year to make games more accessible to the disabled, but only $10,000 more games were sold, then by the law Sony has to do it. (since 10 mil is nothing compared to Sony's total revenues)
Yet, as a business decision, it's lousy. No businessman would spend 10 million annually to gain 10k more annual revenue.
A doctor got sued over this. He would have had to pay thousands of dollars to provide translators for a single deaf patient who was only paying him about $100/visit.
if a guy with poor sight wants to play games then isn`t it up to HIM to make sure he has the right gear?, if you are blind you get yourself a Braille reader/cane/dog, if you are deaf you learn to lipread/buy a hearing aid/add transmitters to your hi-fi, if you can`t walk then you buy a car with hand controls/wheelchair, so, if you have poor eyesight, then buy a 50" tv or a projector and play the game on that, if you STILL can`t see it then i guess you are being a litigatious jerk.
The Americans with Disabilities Act states that, "No individual shall be discriminated against on the basis of disability in the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of any place of public accommodation by any person who owns, leases (or leases to), or operates a place of public accommodation."
since when does sony provide public accommodations????? last time i checked i paid sony... they didnt say come own down to scea headquarters where you can play our ps3 for free...
They should also sue TV for not being Radio!
And the deaf should sue Radio for not being TV...
The MAFIAA is a bunch of mindless jerks who will be the first up against the wall when the revolution comes
So if I poke my eyes out, the porn companies have to deliver the actual porn star to my door? Where's my pen!
Table-ized A.I.
If in the anonymous posters "humble opinion," "providing access for the disabled is not only the right thing to do" then he or she should go ahead an volunteer to work at Sony and provide the service.
SOMEONE has to pay for it. If this were a method to call the police or fire department, that is one thing. This is a game, and people who think it is a fine idea are welcome to pay for it themselves.
As someone with 20/20 vision I would still kill for an option to crank up font size in every single game made for consoles in the last three years. I have a 32" CRT screen, which is by no means small and THEORETICALLY supported for most games... but the fonts are absolutely unreadable without sitting so close that your breath is practically fogging the screen. It isn't like the fonts are huge on high res screens either. It's easy to see how someone with compromised vision could have difficulties. You don't have to be stone blind to be visually impaired, it isn't like they need brail screens. But allowing the user to crank up the font size would be an all around positive move, IMHO.
The software requirements clearly stated:
Clearly, he should probably be suing the hardware manufacturer. Let's hope his mom has some cash.
The interesting thing is, he can play the game, he just cannot play it well. I understand the point of forcing stores to provide ramps to allow access to their stores, or requiring braille on ATM machines to help a person complete a task on their own, but making a video game easier to play seems to fail the logic test. If I cannot play a game well for any reason it doesn't make sense for me to sue the company to force them to change the game to fit my needs. Sony is more then happy for this person to play the game, and will take their money and provide the same service as they do for any other customer. If he can't find the green gnome in the forest to get his magical boots of speed walking then it is not a fault of the game but of the player. They are providing 100% accessibility, but not 100% playability and these are two different things. Now if they wanted to be cheeky they could create a seeing eye dog as an in game pet.
Who is the worst jack*ss here?
The blind guy who is bringing Sony to court because their games are not made for the visually impaired,
or for the courts to actually go through with this case and let it proceed???
This is like the blind guy bringing the government or state to court for not allowing him to drive or making visually impaired friendly vehicles ....no sh*t sherlock, YOU CAN'T SEE!!!
You won't know when your *ss is getting kicked on Call of Duty either because the beeps are "special beeps", you won't SEE the screen!!!
Come on, where is common sense gone to these days?
Well I'm blind and I manage to win at everything I do. I can even post quickly.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bjh61UUv6wA
Ginga no Rekshiya Mata Each page.
You don't understand. The reasoning goes like this:
There's nothing that can't be justified by that reasoning. Any time a blind person isn't experiencing perfect joy, you can be argued to have failed in your obligation. It doesn't cross a line. There's no line.
So impress me. Go drive around the block blindfolded.
Or just WALK to the store blindfolded.
Get dressed, make breakfast, and eat blindfolded. Now go clean up the mess you made, and change your clothes because you got shit all over them.
Make bacon and eggs blindfolded.
Light the barbecue blindfolded and cook a steak.
Pay for something with cash blindfolded.
Walk across the street to your neighbours blindfolded.
Do the groceries blindfolded.
Change the toner in your printer blindfolded.
Make a REAL spaghetti sauce blindfolded (god, the kitchen's going to look like you killed someone!)
Do the laundry blindfolded.
Post on slashdot blindfolded.
You've done all these before, some of them every day for years, if not decades. Certainly dozens of times for many of them ...
... not the eyes are impared. But the "processing center" behind it.
Only in America... :/
Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
I'm aesthetically impaired i'm going to sue because i can't sleep with Megan Fox.
Seriously guys, it's easy to go "Tut tut, blind people can't possibly play games, what an unreasonable fellow". But the article says *visually impaired*, which does not necessarily mean total blindness. There are phases in between where you can see the computer screen but it'd be nice if the game didn't have to make it really hard to follow what's happening. Are there really as many people here as the posts would indicate who can't see this distinction?
Also: are you the same crowd of people who bitch at Microsoft for releasing OSes that are too bloated to run on your hardware without an upgrade. You *can* at least upgrade your hardware!
Every computer I've seen within the last 5-6 years has come with some sort of zoom feature for the visually disabled.
Unless the auction in question breaks the zoom feature. A lot of times, these zoom features work best with desktop applications that run in a window, not DirectX applications that use the full screen. Other times, an application's digital restrictions management interferes with the zoom feature because it can't tell a zoomer from HyperCam.
I have to say that the above point (visually impaired != blind) is highly relevant to the discussion.
Where I'm from someone can be registered blind yet still have some form of eye-sight. My grandfather visually impaired to the point of being considered legally blind, but still drove a car. While this was reckless and irresponsible, he could still do it. He got the best parking spaces too as he had a handicapped sticker for his car due to being visually impaired.
Many of the comments in this topic assume that visually impaired means completely blind, which is just plain wrong.
So if you have some moderator points, could you please be so kind as to mod up the parent. Thank you.
WoW isn't targeted only to Americans
Even though Blizzard is a French-owned company, the servers with less lag to North America are targeted toward North Americans, and thus subject to American and Canadian anti-discrimination law.
But clearly this guy is obviously just out to tell the world he's a jackass (really, he's obviously just out to make a quick buck). I believe that if you're actually ask for a specified amount in damages, and then lose your case - you should have to pay the court an amount equal to those damages. That would limit the number of frivolous lawsuits like this crap.
Down with the career politician! SUPPORT TERM LIMITS
I'm thinking back to the original Halo days and the Library. What would the accessibility voice-over sound like on that level after the suit?
The ADA only applies to "commercial speech", where the intent is to sell. [...] Games aren't usually "commercial speech".
Do advertisements in video games count as "commercial speech"? What about Sony's "official auction site where gamers can sell their in-game items for real money" that the article mentions?
For those of you interested, the gamer's name in the article is Brandon Cole.
His website is www.brandoncole.net. His email, from the site, is brandon@brandoncole.net.
Ah, America, land of the free ... unless you're in business, in which case voters think it's acceptable for the Government to force you to do business with whomever they please, in whatever way they want.
Mind you, it works both ways, with Sony illegally installing rootkits on PCs and lobbying the Government for favours in the form of Copyright legislation.
Perhaps they deserve each other?
Ha - while I think the guy in this example is particularly stupid and just after a quick buck - you have your assessment nearly completely ass-backwards. Voters usually only manage to convince government to correct the grievous exploitation of workers or customers by business if it wouldn't be too damaging to the politician's campaign contribution network. US Government is currently so far in the pocket of business, its ridiculous. Generally, though, only in the pocket of very large business, not your average small business. You have to be a public company, or even better, an investment back - and then you pretty much get whatever you want from the government.
Down with the career politician! SUPPORT TERM LIMITS
Video games are a VISUAL FREAKING MEDIUM!!!!!!!!! This would be like suing an orchestra because you are deaf!!! I sincerely hope that this case gets laughed out of court.
Looking at TFA, it mentions a piece of the Act in question:
The Americans with Disabilities Act states that, "No individual shall be discriminated against on the basis of disability in the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of any place of public accommodation by any person who owns, leases (or leases to), or operates a place of public accommodation."
It would seem he might have something when it comes to the Auction Site that sony runs, as I could see this fitting into that definition, but the game itself, no way. A game is not a public accommodation, it is a possession.
How could you possibly make a video game accessible to the blind without undue financial strain? The fact that a company is even required to make their products available to the disabled is enraging. How about some common sense? This suit was clearly filed by some greedy blind guy looking for a quick pay off.I hope his seeing eye dog gets spooked and mauls him.
This is disgusting! Next we'll hear, someone will be forced to sue prosthetic limb companies because they discriminate against people who have all of their appendages still attached! Outrageous!
It makes good business sense to make a game that caters to as many people as possible. Personally I hope that he wins and Sony et al start to take accessibility seriously.
Also, it's scary how right wing people are here.
Visually impaired video games? I dont get it.
Baseball bat manufacturers are next.
> Voters usually only manage to convince government
> to correct the grievous exploitation of workers
> or customers by business if it wouldn't be too
> damaging to the politician's campaign
> contribution network.
Care to give some examples of this 'grievous exploitation' that needs 'correct[ion]?'
For what it's worth, they do not say he's blind. He's visually impaired. That doesn't mean he's blind to the point of not seeing, but he could be blind to the point of not having peripheral vision, or having blind spots, etc. From TFA, it sounds like he can't see the entire screen at once, and wants some kind of way to know if something else is happening on the screen, IE having the screen flash red when hit, etc, like in many arcade games.
I'm not blind, nor am I otherwise visually impaired, but I don't like seeing people getting picked on without knowing their whole story.
As somebody who can see just fine, I want all videogames to come with subtitles... so that I never have to listen to any godawful american dubbing of otherwise awesome japanese games.
This is stupid. How is a visual based company suppose to be more viable to a blind man? This would like if this guy sued Honda or GM or Ford. I'm blind but I want to drive a car. Make your car more viable so I can drive? YOUR BLIND YOU CANT DRIVE A CAR YOU WILL KILL SOME ONE OR YOURSELF DEAL WITH IT! Further more. YOUR BLIND YOU CANT PLAY VIDEO GAMES OR WATCH TV WHY ARE YOU SUEING SONY? Did Sony make you blind? Where you playing with the beta controller that looked like a batarang and get it stuck in your eyes? Seriously?
Forty years ago, Hurricane78 would have been bitching about a bunch of people who had the temerity to not be white, congregating on the Mall in Washington to listen to some guy named King talk.
Before you burn out you brain trying to figure it out, Hurricane: Yes, I am saying that your distaste for "The Gay" is the same as racism, and that this makes you a bad person.
Video Games are for the most part, a combination of visual animation, manual dexterity and audio cues all orchestrated and arranged in such a way to deliver a plot and purpose in order to play the game. If I were to become blind, I would not be able to play a video
.
.
Now, if we could make games accessible, it would require the User Interface to be adaptable to the impaired..
That means the following:.
if you can plug "video" information in the brain directly, bypassing the eyes for the blind.
If you can do the same for "sound" information for the deaf..
If you can somehow make controls "brain" operated for the manually impaired....
.
We aren't quite yet there, although there are people out there trying to find ways to overcome these obstacles..
At the moment, with the current technology, it is simply impossible for all the games to be accessible..
And, I can't see why game console manufacturers as well as game designers would have to limit their designs strictly for the impaired..
Suing Sony for this, well, why not sue the music industry for not making their products available to the hearing impaired and the deaf?.
Not all people are born the same, some have limitations that others dont.
Sure, whoever can somehow come up with the technologies to bridge these limitations will certainly gain a huge market..
Yes, it would be great, for anyone with limitations to have new options..
But gaming isn't a priviliege, it's entertainment.
Access to information, I can understand, which is why I'm a strong believe in the W3C accessibility guidelines..
But entertainment is very subjective and the reality is, not all are born equal, that's the truth..
Don't go suing companies providing services that are not essential because you don't have the ability to use their products. That's just plain wrong.
Being disabled myself, I can sympathize with such frustrations... but guess what... even the disabled can be totally unreasonable!
Sure, it's one thing to expect handicapped accessible ramps and bathrooms at places of business which deal directly with the public, but it's something completely different to expect a business to cater to any and every conceivable disability when the person in question isn't even on their property or being dealt with on a personal basis.
Why should this person be suing Sony for problems extending beyond the scope of their hardware's intended use when the guy could just as easily find a 3rd party solution for such issues and get government assistance to acquire it? Are they somehow entitled to a first party solution simply because a third party solution might not be as pretty to use or look at? Is there a reason this person should expect every piece of software/hardware he encounters to have a built-in zoom function, when he could just as easily use something like a display magnifying glass like that featured in the film version of "1984"? And how would they prove that using such an external solution would "damage" them to the point that the only logical solution is to sue not the display hardware's manufacturer, but the manufacturer of other hardware using that display?
After all, is it Sony's fault that this person purchased a TV with pixels too small for them to view the images shown on it adequately?
8==8 Bones 8==8
You probably realize that they're trivial to break, right?
Even as websites go, probably _the_ best example, is the old ('90's era) Ultima Online site, which literally had all text as pictures. Looked cool, like pages from an old scroll or codex, but if you think any software can read that (even an OCR would throw occasional fits), you probably are too optimistic. Ok, so most sites nowadays wouldn't go to such extremes, but having at least titles or buttons pre-rendered as buttons is one of those undead ideas that just won't stay dead and buried.
And, of course, it only becomes easier to screw up if you're using Flash, Java FX or pretty much any of the other tools that encourage artists to mix in cutesy effects and animations and pictures.
But even plain HTML and JavaScript can be a great obfuscation tool in the hands of the incompetent. Just make it a mess of DIV tags that no reader can sort to read right, for example.
Captchas too are becoming increasingly obnoxious, and they're popping up in places where they have no reason to be. E.g., it's happened again that I have to fill in a captcha to buy something online, and I'm thinking that's pretty silly, ffs. What are they defending against? Some bot buying me a present with my own credit card?
And you don't have to even be blind to have trouble with some captchas. I figure I still have pretty good eyes, and I'm doing 50-50 on some of them. And again, if you think any screen reader will be able to read a captcha rendered as a bitmap... well, let's just say that bots would have no trouble reading it too.
The option to have some numbers read at you is even worse, if you're not a native English speaker and have perfect hearing. I know last I've tried that option, the sounds was so post-processed and mixed with background noises (again, or speech recognition software would make easy work of the captcha), that I just went "huh? what?"
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
Nope. You missed my point completely and I don't care enough to try to re-explain it to you. Suffice it to say my post had nothing to do with Marxism.
Down with the career politician! SUPPORT TERM LIMITS
It's worth noting that the reason the Target case was mentioned in the summary, is because it was about target.com (just the website). If that could settle for millions, he might have a pretty good case assuming he is right on the facts.
Okay, so, let's say the guy has a valid point. Sony now needs to remove the parts of the game where vision makes a difference because blind people can't play.
But wait, the quadraparaplegics can't do that twitch part ... so now the twitch parts have to go.
Oh, wait a sec, we're forgetting the insane, now we need to remove the hard puzzles that might baffle the insane mind.
Oh, and let's not forget the "mentally challenged", so now we need to remove all the easy parts too.
So, now you get a game where you click a button and a screen pops up saying "You win!". Oh, wait, we've already discussed that clicking bit so it'll just autoplay the "You win!" screen.
I'm actually a long time advocate of accessible website creation but geez, give it a rest already, you're alienating your allies.
Post on slashdot blindfolded.
And how did you think kdawson prepares slashdot stories?
The right thing to do?
Here's the bitter pill of reality: when you're a gimp or a cripple (go ahead, mod me down for being not PC, don't care) there are certain things you're not going to be able to do or enjoy. No amount of bastardizing the language, feel good TV shows or legislation is going to change the fact that VIDEO games (much like pretty much everything else that is VIDEO) aren't going to be accessible to people lacking the sense that allows them to SEE.
Get over it. Just... gahhhhh.
The right thing to do... according to who? And the jackasses around here say creationists ignore reality. You think fucking dolts yourself are any better? You're just a different flavor of stupid and annoying. I hope this fucking bonehead has to pay Sony's attorney's fees.
I worked for a test-prep company and everytime we got someone with a visual or hearing impairment we dreaded it. Since the offices had their own budgets, it could be extremely expensive to get materials printed or provide sign interpreters for these folks (interpreters could run $100/hr with all their expenses). I don't wish the afflictions on anyone, but it was just so expensive to accomodate, and seems like there could be a better system.
Even scarier, my good friend went to a top 10 med school and there was a legally blind girl there that wanted to be a doctor. She had alot of problems and it was so expensive for the school to provide her with special equipment to be able to blurrily see things she couldn't see anyways. She had a really hard time getting a residency, and I don't think she ever got into a good residency program. Would you want a doctor examining you who couldn't see you clearly? I wanted to go to Med School too, but I didnt have the stomach for the smells and sights of it. If I have the grades and the MCAT scores, should the school allow me not to look at the corpses and not have to do the nasty stuff? I don't think so. How about I go and do something that I actually can do. People with visual disabilities can do so many things, and its not society's fault that there will unfortunately be a handful of things out of reach or prohibitively expensive.
This has gotten ridiculous.
GAME OVER MAN! GAME OVER.
hear i have linked it. it works for pc ps3 and xbox 360. http://www.edimensional.com/product_info.php?cPath=24&products_id=143
Blind/cripple whatever goes to a car dealership.. the building, toilets, water fountain should rightly be accessible to that person.
But this lawsuit now expects the car salesman to modify the car for his disability... for free? The modifications for extended controls or whatever can cost thousands.
I feel for the handicapped but your accident/illness/affliction should in no way = free ride.
Hahaha, everybody knows the PlayStation 3 has no games. If this idiot weren't so blind, he'd know this already.
In my humble opinion, providing access for the disabled is not only the right thing to do but it will generate more profit for Sony.
The cost of development, testing and support likely outweighs the profits. Let's pretend 250,000 disabled gamers buy the game (very large number. there are about 60,000 blind school age children in the US for example). For many big budget games they may have to sell 5 million copies before they can even break even. And you're adding on easily another million dollars in costs with the extra staff necessary to support additional features (1 designer + 2-3 developers + 5 testers + 10 extra tech and customer support). I fudge some numbers and get 900k/yr for the staff, if you pay them in India or China it's more like 300k/yr.
I strongly supsect that you will have to pay a premium for developers and testers that specialize in interfaces for the disabled.
Now for a simple indy game, I think the right indy developer witth right set of skills could make a fun and interesting game that is playable by everyone, including the disabled. And do it with the about the same amount of capital and time as a typical indy game. But the trick there is you need a clever person to implement it and also have a game concept that was selected specifically to meet those goals.
Should companies make things like WoW or Halo playable by everyone? Sure, that would be wonderful. But let us not pretend that there is profit in doing so when the costs are so very high. If you want to bring the government down on businesses for not doing it, I think they should get some tax breaks if they can show that the cost of adding the support was significant.
How exactly is a blind person supposed to play a FPS? How about something as simple as a platformer? Simply put, video games are a visual medium. Unless that game is specifically targeted towards the blind, this isn't going to happen.
According to wikipedia "The term video (from Latin: "I see") commonly refers to several storage formats for moving pictures"
This - in my head (brain if I have any left) means people who can see, and not significantly visually impaired.
Sorry (and call me troll) is like someone suing Apple for the ipod to be not deaf friendly, even after several mails to make is usable for the hearing impaired.
WTF is wrong withe people..... I would kill myself if I went blind, but suing Sony for the video console not being blind friendly? That person's problem is not called "visually impaired" it is called FUCKING STUPID!
more than you might think, if that movie with Richard Dreyfuss is to be believed.
I'm right there with you, screw all these people expecting hand outs. If you want something done, then do it yourself. That's the American way!!!
You know what, too? I say, let's do the same thing to abortions... why do we need all these whiney people complaining that we're killing babies? Let's do it the right way, and if that baby doesn't want to be aborted, then they can defend themselves. Hell, let it kind of hold up in perpetuity... if you can kill your kid, then too f-ing bad for them, maybe they should have spent less time crying for someone for protection and help, and more time defending themselves.
That's the only American way to solve the problem. Lord knows that when I lose the use of both of my legs because my parents stabbed me in my back paralyzing me, that I will haul myself up by my own bootstraps if I have to, up the stairs of our court house to sue the f-k out of them. HOOOOOOOWAH!!!!
WARNING! This girl exceeds the MAXIMUM SAFE standards established by the FDA for BRATTINESS
Sony should use this as an opportunity to capitalize on the public's sever disdain for idiots like these by developing a game called:
GAMING THE SYSTEM.
Honestly, this clown purchases a video game, knowing that he will have trouble SEEING THE GRAPHICS?! I think he has a Mental Impairment, along with his Visual Impairment.
"The Americans with Disabilities Act states that, "No individual shall be discriminated against on the basis of disability in the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of any place of public accommodation by any person who owns, leases (or leases to), or operates a place of public accommodation."
-"by any person who owns, leases (or leases to), or operates a place of public accommodation.": Sony's games are not public property or goods, as the ownership is transferred from one person to another. Further, Sony has no legal obligation to make their products ADA-compliant, as they are not public products. Also, there are other places to sell games, not just through Sony's service, such as Gamestop, flea markets, Amazon, EBay, etc. This moron has many other places to sell his used games. Additionlly, this kid proceeded with purchasing his games knowing full well that it was a VIDEO game, a visually-oriented product, that may not be suitable for his vision.
For all you ADA Bleeding Heart lawsuit slingers, this post is not ADA compliant for the visually, auditorally, or mentally impaired.
Knowing Google's lust for data collection, the Soviet Union is still alive and well inside the psyche of Sergey Brin....
Seriously, where is he? I'm blind and I can't see him. Anyone?
sorry he's gimp and all that, but fark him...
Prototype and CODII weren't designed with his "special needs" in mind. I know a fun game that has could be the rage for you gimp people - it's called" Marco-Polo".
File a lawsuit for own $$$ gain on behalf of every non-gimp.. I hope your rusty wheelchair gives you tetanus..
The Americans with Disabilities Act only applies to PLACES of Public Accommodation. Physical places like a store or a workplace or a concert hall etc...
Products are not covered.
- A Frog in a pond utters an azure cry. -
I bet the people Sony sues for $150,000 per infringed $0.99 song are happy... Live by the sword, die by the sword.
I think Sony's defense will consist of "come on, we make VIDEO games". Then they will cite the definition of the word "video". Case dismissed.
the Target case is completely different, and I don't think it applies here. And the Martin v. PGA case relates to employment, and appears to be completely irrelevant to video games intended for home use. Sorry, you don't have a legal right to play video games in an ideal manner. What's next, suing Ford an Toyota because their speedometers can not easily be read by the visually impaired? Suing the MPAA (not that I'm opposed to that)? I am not able to derive optimal enjoyment from most of Sony's crap, er, leisure products either, so I buy other things instead, rather than suing them to make what I want. Geepers creepers.
This is a hacked account, for which the owner can not be held responsible.
Hey! Get a clue. (not you – the guy) It’s called a VIDEO game. It has nothing to do with public access. What’s next? Suing the Catholic Church as God’s “representative” because one is blind?!! How about suing the state for not granting you a driver’s license? Idea: Maybe game companies could create a game just for visually impaired people using sound differentiation (virtual location).
You make good points and I agree completely, but just to be really nitpicky:
1) I can easily pay cash blindfolded - I live in the Eurozone, and both Euro coins and notes are easily distinguishable by feel (by design)
2) Posting on slashdot blindfolded is easy, given a screenreader to help me know what I'm replying to and find the "Reply" button.
Your other points all stand.
I just can't seem to wrap my head around rocket science...
I think I'm going to sue NASA...
It's actually got a point.
The main issue appears to be Everquest and the other MMOs they make. These games do not feature reasonable accomodation for visually impaired users. There is only so far you can accomodate visually impaired people in a visual medium, but it's good to go as far as you can without damaging the experience for those with normal vision.
The lawsuit refers to World of Warcraft and some other games to show that such accomodation is in fact possible in an online video game context at a reasonable cost.
I'm not sure the ADA actually applies to online games, but if they can convince the court that it does, they seem to have a solid argument for trial.
Thanks.
I wish someone would sue Sony and get them to update their firmware to allow for closed captioning of DVDs played on their PS3. That's right, the system that "just does everything" doesn't do closed captioning. Many/most tv shows are recorded with closed captioning on the Dvd/BlueRay and without subtitles (which do play). This would be a far better reason to go after Sony, and probably yield a tangible result.
I hope the blind bastard gets his ass thrown out of court. its assholes like this that make people with disabilities look bad. just more proof the americans with disabilities with special rights act is bs. I'm disabled and most disabled people I know don't want special treatment or force private companies to accommodate them or else have the government force them to. is he going to sue car makers next because they haven't accommodated blind drivers? you are blind, doing something to entertain yourself that doesn't require vision dumbass. you can't blame Sony for making products that require you to have vision, its not their fault you don't have any.
They'll just pain the whole screen black.
There are four boxes used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order.
After reading TFA:
*It seems mostly focused on MMOs, but doesn't name any specific games.
*"Visually impaired" is not a euphemism for "blind" here - he literally means "people who can see, but not well". So much of the backlash is misguided ("Blind people are suing to play video games? LOLWUT? Next they'll want to drive???!!!?")
*His list of things that would make a difference are reasonable - high-contrast display modes, audio navigation cues, audio descriptions of items, and the like.
*HOWEVER... he then proceeds to state that Sony's causing him to LOSE MONEY because he could be selling his in-game items for real-world cash. Ugh.
So this thing isn't entirely over-the-top, but it definitely falls apart when he argues monetary loss.
He's complaining about the features of a game, which are a good, or good/service combination, using legislation that specifically targets location based attractions. If he's going after Sony because of its SonyStyle stores, then any possible equitable remedy would also apply to every store that has a game kiosk, or anything interactive at all, like the easy listening CD machine at Bed Bath and Beyond.
Personally, I really, really hope that this case is dismissed. First, for inapplicability of the statute, but more importantly so that game developers are not saddled with the additional economic burden of adding disability compliance to all games. The mechanics of a video game are not like walking up a ramp, including a braille menu, or using the bathroom. They are varied, and hinge fundamentally on a wide variety of combinations of audio and visual stimuli that cannot generally be summed in a way to make them equally accessible given some sensory impairment. There is no single, predictable means of meeting such a requirement, adding more uncontrollable variable cost to game development, leading to less ambitious titles, less experimentation among developers, less development time and resources for the core functionality of the game. Having been a software developer, a game developer, and now a legal scholar, this just seems bad, bad, bad.
This is where I get my recommended daily allowance of "Foot in Mouth."
Can someone define the words "blind" and "video" to this guy? Why are blind people trying to play VIDEO games? What's next, karaoke for the deaf?
I don't know about you but I'd figure that a video game would be considered art work to some extent and modifying it with someone else's ideas is the same and destroying the original vision of the artist. I do a lot of web site creation and honestly consider my craft a form of art. I have never been hit up with a ADA suit but if I were to be, that would definitely be the approach I'd be taking for my defense.
I didn't miss your point; rather, I was asking you to enumerate some examples of worker exploitation by large companies in America. Specifically, some examples that you think need correcting by the Government.
Since your argument seems to hinge on that claim, I thought you'd have a good number of examples to hand.
Here's the reasoning taken only slightly out of context:
I'm blind, and you won't let me be a police officer walking a beat with a gun, so I'm going to sue the city.
I'm blind, and I can't drive a car, so I'm going to sue Toyota.
I'm blind, and I can't see what color clothes you're wearing, so I'm going to sue Old Navy.
I'm blind, and can't see who I'm trying to hit with a huge sword, so I'm going to sue... Sony.
Or how about... I'm blind, and I have found a way to make money so I don't have to be any sort of a productive member of society by suing everyone I can think of.
It's as though he refuses to accept the fact that he is blind. It sucks, but you have to accept that you can't do EVERYTHING. Why the hell would a blind person want to play a video game anyway? What do they get from it?
yes cool.
Frankly,
I think this guy should be slapped repeatedly. While one might not hit a man with glasses, this blind man is fair game.
I am sick of people with disabilities who have unreasonable expectations and demands. You're blind. We try to accommodate you. And we do a lot as a society. But realize you can't see and that you won't be able to participate in some activities. LIKE DRIVING!!!!!
I hate these lawsuits because they make me hate handicapped people. But then I have to remind myself. This is not because the man is blind, but because he is STUPID!!!
I respect all persons with disabilities, but I am sorry this guy is just out to make a buck. Playing video games is not a right, its a privilege. In order to participate in the activity, you need the physical and mental capability to do so, the money required to purchase the TV, the console, the games, and optional accessories. Everyone has the right to use a public restroom, which requires no money and any other special equipment/products. I like to whitewater kayak, does that mean that quadripalegic, or blind person should have access and be able to as well? Should the kayak manufactures cater do the disabled needs too on principle?
Its bad enough that this bozo is trying to sue them for not accommodating the blind in an arena that requires fairly acute visual ability and skills. But, is our justice system going to let this one even get to first base? Let's just hope that the judge involved isn't another moron and doesn't make Sony provide 'special' giant screens for the visually impaired. It seems that these day if someone has a handicap of some kind, they think that they're entitled to special treatment. Blow me. If I don't want to provide a ramp into my private business, I don't have to. I'm not the only one in town and some places of business (manufacturing) are really no place for a bunch of cripples, anyway, much less the blind. Sony is fighting the 'entitlement' mindset. I hope they sock it to him right between the eyes with a baseball bat. Probably won't hurt his outlook...
I don't think that this should be a matter for the courts. But, there have been times when I have been playing games where it would have been very easy for the designers to pair each visual cue with an audio cue, and make the game fully accessible to the blind, or vice-versa for the deaf. Obviously, not all games are suited for the blind, but the ones that should be easily playable often have some key cue missing. All I ask is that designers keep the disabled in mind when making their games, so that they can have accessible games without impacting development cost or playability.
The Americans with Disabilities Act is meant to protect people that are disabled from being discriminated against when it comes to receiving government services or jobs with the government. This is even limited within the government. You need to be able to walk/run and have all five senses to be an FBI agent. Some people have limitations and private companies that ARE NOT part of the government ARE NOT obligated to accommodate them with their products. It's like the time I heard of an overweight person talking about suing a company for not making shirts in his size. Ridiculous.
Beyond the denial of entertainment, the suit also contends that Sony's actions have caused visually impaired gamers a financial loss. Because Sony runs an official auction site where gamers can sell their in-game items for real money, the suit says Stern's inability to participate in that marketplace is costing him money.
Is the auction system flash based? How is this different from eBay or Amazon?
Let this post be a lesson. If a blind guy can spell perfectly on the Internet, so can the rest of you slobs!
Is a privilege, Not a right.
His suit will get thrown out due to the fact of sheer stupidity.
Stupidity only gets you so far, then you've gotta try
then quite frankly that's YOUR problem. It shouldn't become the problem of a company that develops something specifically for a medium that REQUIRES you to be able to see. You don't like common sense yet? wait till it pushes the price of your game up and the quality of the build down. Some people will think I am being too harsh here but these sorts of things are being taken to ridiculous extremes. Maybe we need a version of pong that uses sound to indicate bat and ball positioning? That's just stupid. Can deaf people sue the makers of MP3 players because they can't appreciate the music? Maybe we could create an MP3 player that converts the bass to a rhythmic tap on the forehead. I am all for installing ramps for people in wheelchairs and signs in braille but let's have some sensible limits. Should fat people who go shopping in their electric scooters get special preferences? or should they just put down that piece of chocolate fscking cake and get a sense of perspective. All these minority special interest groups are going to end up screwing everything up for the majority sooner or later. I personally can't wait to get my copy of Guitar Hero Nose! What makes this post even sicker is the fact that somewhere I have probably committed a hate crime - the world is going fscking crazy.
The new right fascists are bilingual. They speak English and Bullshit.
"It's not the law, it's the plaintiff stupid."
Ok for those that don't get that it's a play on the frequent bumpersticker:
"It's not the guns, it's the criminal stupid."
Until judges start holding people accountable for abusing the legal system this will continue. No law will ever be abuse proof. Until the Bar starts holding lawyers accountable for taking frivolous suits, this will continue.
The problem is the plaintiff not the law.
-=[ Who Is John Galt? ]=-
Political Correctiveness is ruining the world...