Slashdot Mirror
ADA May Force Netflix To Provide Closed Captioning On Content
Shivetya writes "Last year Netflix was sued by the National Association for the Deaf for failing to provide closed captioned text through its on-demand streaming service. Now, a judge has denied Netflix's attempt to have the suit thrown out, saying that the Americans with Disabilities Act prohibits discrimination in any venue — not just physical structures. The easiest means to comply would be to remove all videos which do not have a closed captioning component, the other route would require Netflix to pay to have this done to any video it wants to provide. The implications to other providers is immense as well. The plaintiffs will still need to prove that Netflix is legally obligated to provide closed-captioning, but the ruling is still significant for recognizing that Internet sites may fall under the purview of the Americans with Disabilities Act."
On one hand this sucks. The amount of revenue you bring in by making your content accessible is not going to pay the cost of doing so. Same can be said with making websites accessible to the blind (and really probably most brick n’ mortar establishments.. especially if retrofit).
On the other hand that’s part of living in a civilized society. Most of us could easily by freak accident be in a position where we’d want these services... and doing non-profitable stuff like this just becomes another cost of business.
The implications on other content and especially user supplied content where no/very little revenue is being generated are of course the most scary. Where do you (or do you) draw the line between content that is “real” enough to require closed captioning (commercial productions, movies, etc..), and content that doesn’t (videos taken on cell phones, etc..).
The obvious answer would be monetization. If the video author isn’t getting money, the requirement goes away. But trying to turn that into a concrete policy becomes very mucky, as sites like youtube are profiting from it either directly from ad revenue, or indirectly through increased traffic/draw to their site.
Quite seriously, is that normal in the US that every program needs to have CC or are TV networks trying to push the competition out of business? Just asking...
Another question, does it say anything about the quality of the CC? I mean, how expensive could it be to have some Chinese or NKor people create yet another Backstroke of the West style CC?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Used to have a deaf roommate who was big into "deaf culture" (and was very annoying about it). We're talking Malcolm X militant about it. He wasn't alone either. There are a lot of people into deaf rights who think it should be illegal to air or play anything non-CC'ed. And they *will* sue.
Great for them, not so great for the rest of us who get cut off from all non-CC'ed content. And getting something CC'ed is pretty expensive--prohibitively so for a lot of indies.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
Would this include YouTube?
Netflix will need to mail a Braille transcript.
What if Netflix doesn't consider the deaf to be its target audience and specifically indicates this fact? Why can a private service which requires people to pay before viewing content be forced to accommodate people who may not be their target market?
By this same token, a duochrome-colorblind person can petition for color-adjusted films. A blind person can request a specific voice feed that describes the actions of the characters in a film, and so forth. Why not just let some other service create closed captions for deaf viewers to subscribe to?
Viable Slashdot alternatives: https://pipedot.org/ and http://soylentnews.org/
Probably because they wouldn't do it at all.
Like everything else, we can't seem to find a happy medium. Making something (anything) accessible is almost always a financial loss. You spend thousands of dollars adding ramps, special bathrooms, etc and might gain 4 new customers.. you add CC to a video and again, you probably won't draw enough extra traffic to pay the cost of doing so.
We have decided as a society that simply having no accessibility is unacceptable. So we have to bite the bullet and call it a cost of business. Unfortunately as usual, we went to far.. and now as you said, we end up putting unreasonable burdens on people for very little benifit.
if this is about discrimination in any venue, then there are millions of porn sites and otherwise that are not ADA compliant.
insensitive clod overlords obligatory xkcd car analogy russian reversals whoosh pedant fanbois ftfy in 3...2...1..PROFIT
There are a lot of people who would participate in typing up the CC track for movies, especially if it was allowed to be copied around for noncommercial use. Unfortunately, I seriously doubt that the MPAA would allow it, for the same reason they don't want you to rip your own DVD for backup purposes -- their policies are directed by lawyers whose priorities rarely overlap with what's good for consumers. If they could sue the IMDB project, they probably would.
Because then every business would argue that it can't install ramps. And usually the argument would boil down to it being possible, it'd just cost money and the business doesn't want to spend money.
Society, OTOH, has decided that it's not in it's best interests for a significant number of it's members to not be able to do the basic things everyone else can, like get into a store and shop for goods or go to the theater and watch a movie. Just like it decided it wasn't in it's best interests for a significant number of it's members to be relegated to the back of the bus and to second-rate schools just because of the color of their skin. Businesses don't like it now, just like they didn't like it then, but society doesn't make it's decisions based on what's best for businesses (just like businesses don't make their decisions based on what's best for society, apparently). I've a little sympathy for them, but since in large part they've demonstrated that nothing short of application of a blunt instrument will get them to behave my general attitude's become "If they don't like the terms society wants, they're free to pack their businesses up and go elsewhere.".
"As of January 1, 2008, 75 percent of “pre-rule” English language programming, defined as analog programming first shown before January 1, 1998, and digital programming first shown before July 1, 2002, must be captioned, with some exceptions."
citation:http://transition.fcc.gov/cgb/consumerfacts/closedcaption.pdf
every day http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random
If NetFlix is required, then are theaters? What about YouTube? More importantly what about online porn?
I'm so confused...
Netflix cannot comply with the ADA in this case, because doing so would create a derivative work of the original, without the permission of the copyright holder.
Simple as that.
Now, whether or not Netflix still has to comply... Well, perhaps we can twist this to our own gain - Does the obligation to make their content "accessible" trump copyright? If so, you can bet your left nut I'll have a business model the very next day designed to exploit that fact.
Your turn, courts - Punish us all to protect the weak, or give up your paternalistic attitude toward Big Media.
closed captioning didn't become "all tv's" and all programming until 1990
Cite:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Closed_captioning#Legislative_development_in_the_U.S.
Netflix has 3035 videos from 1914 to 1989
and 10,937 from 1990 to 2012
pre 1998 videos total 4,440
cite:instantwatchdb.com
"As of January 1, 2008, 75 percent of “pre-rule” English language programming, defined as analog programming first shown before January 1, 1998, and digital programming first shown before July 1, 2002, must be captioned, with some exceptions."
citation:http://transition.fcc.gov/cgb/consumerfacts/closedcaption.pdf
which means they have to provide CC on 75% of 4440 videos, or drop them...
every day http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random
I used to be involved with ADA, and I believe the lawsuit will eventually fail. There are two components to ADA that they might go after, Telecommunications or Public Accommodation. However, The language of the law is pretty specific, and there's no way Netflix will fall under either of these categories. As many have already pointed out, Netflix losing would be a catastrophically slippery slope, and no court would initiate that without clear intent from Congress. Just because a case isn't summarily dismissed doesn't mean it will win, it simply means the judge believes it's worth hearing.
This is just a preliminary ruling. Netflix tried to have the suit dismissed, that didn't work, and now it gets tried on the merits.
At some point, the ADA runs into the First Amendment, which prohibits "forced speech". (Broadcast TV is a special case, because it involves publicly owned RF spectrum.) Book publishers aren't required to produce audio or Braille editions, or translations to another language.
This is an absurd argument. Netflix is providing something to be consumed for a fee. They throw it out there and say, here's our food. This is what we are serving and here is the price. So, let's say I have a gluten allergy. I can't walk in to the local bakery and scream that they are obligated to provide me with gluten free bread? I am not entitled to any of the products or services of the bakery. I can either buy it or not. Same with Netflix. I have sympathy for the deaf, but private business does not have to change to accommodate their disadvantage.
Oh, yeah! Wise guy, huh? Woob woob woob woob! Nyuk! Nyuk!
>but the ruling is still significant for recognizing that Internet sites may fall under the purview of the Americans with Disabilities Act."
Web designers have ignored the sight impaired for far too long and had it far too easy. They have ignored standards, done stupid shit as use pictures for blocks of text, flash-only (like the IOC did once) and engaged in "get the hell out, you peon with a screen-reader" nonsense ever since the term "rich content" slipped out of someone's lips 15+ years ago.
Every web designer should spend a week using the Internet blindfolded, using only JAWS.
"But who cares about the blind?"
There but for the grace of the Universe go you.
--
BMO
Larry Goldberg from NCAM says that it typically costs $400-$800 to caption a movie from scratch. If you add to that the fact that most Hollywood movies are already captioned by their content owners, it becomes the proverbial drop in the bucket.
Just pass everything through voice recognition (even shitty M$ one) and all of a sudden you comply. This is how YT is doing it.
Who logs in to gdm? Not I, said the duck.
So if this atrocity somehow survives through SCOTUS will this mean authors who self publish are now required to provide braille copies or else be sued too? Will I have to spend thousands of dollars to sell one or two copies of my book to a blind person? Are you fucking kidding me? ADA has morphed from 'we should try where we can to do what is reasonably possible to help the handicapped' to 'gimme gimme gimme or else!'
Disgusting.
Or you could simply be a real parent and not tolerate misbehavior. My parents just told me to shut the hell up when it was inappropriate to make noise.
My spoon is too big.
movies are an "art" form that has two components - sound and video. If you're blind or deaf, you're missing part of it - that's not netflix's fault. Supermarkets don't have as a requisite part of the experience audio or video. Supermarkets are also a necessity. It's a silly analogy. Besides, to add captioning, netflix would be altering the video...which they don't have the license to do. Why would the content providers not be the responsible parties for captioning, versus the distributor? Would you sue a record store for not making captioned versions of every LP? Would that make sense at all? Or sue the Louvre for not providing a braile version of the Mona Lisa? How is suing netflix in this case any different?
I keep hearing this argument over and over, but ramps and 'special' bathrooms make life easier for a lot of other customers. Kids for one things. Those special bathrooms give you plenty of room to change diapers. Ramps come in handy for parents with strollers. Not to mention that someone in a wheelchair probably has friends and family that would like to come with them.
It really is an absurd argument. If you only gain 4 customers than you probably didn't have many customers to begin with.
---------- Open Source is capitalism applied to IP.
I've never seen anyone substantiate this claim except in the case of a multi-story building designed without elevators where a remodel requires one to be installed. Those are a vanishingly small number of cases these days since all multi-story facilities come with elevators now (and the price of simple hydraulic elevators has dropped).
No one is making you retrofit anything if you are just using an existing building as-is. You only have to comply with the ADA if you are remodeling and then you can bypass restrictions if the facility is physically unable to accommodate or if it would be a financial hardship. How much does it really cost to combine two toilet stalls into one wheelchair accessible stall? A bag of quick-crete, a compass & string, and a couple hours of your time and you can pour your own wheelchair ramp for less than a hundred bucks and be 100% compliant with the latest code.
The vast majority of complaining about ADA compliance is just penny-pinchers or people who don't like doing extra design work, even if it doesn't add much to the cost or timeline... Same reason railroads didn't adopt the safer air brakes or coupling knuckles even though both saved them money (and many brake and car men their fingers/lives!) in the long run and resulted in far fewer derailments. Congress literally had to force them to adopt technologies that saved lives, paid for themselves, and ultimately saved a lot of money.
ADA won't save money so please, do tell, how exactly a combat vet with his legs blown off has any chance of enjoying a semi-normal life without things like the ADA? Don't those businesses owe him something, for protecting the society that allows them to even have a business in the first place? Or did the safety and security of the United States spring wholly from their own bootstraps in some sort of Randian fantasy land?
Natural != (nontoxic || beneficial)
You got me. I'm a horrible parent by letting my 2, 6, and 8 year old laugh and enjoy movies at home.
I love Jesus, except for his foreign policy.