Assuming that Reason.com presented the facts of this case fairly (a rather generous assumption), rather than framing it as the DOJ forcing Berkeley to take the

Assuming that Reason.com presented the facts of this case fairly (a rather generous assumption), rather than framing it as the DOJ forcing Berkeley to take the videos down, I think the fairer way is to say that Berkeley is refusing to make the videos accessible to the hearing impaired. Captioning the videos would be hugely beneficial to all users of the videos, not just those with hearing problems. I am skeptical that the DOJ would not accept a good-faith active project to caption the videos to allow them to stay online. But the facts as presented don't make much sense anyway. I'm not sure I understand how withdrawing access to just Berkeley students and professors changes the ADA implications. Curious if anyone knows something about this. Edit, here's the actual statement from Berkeley: http://news.berkeley.edu/2017/03/01/course-capture/ http://news.berkeley.edu/2017/03/01/course-capture/ we have determined that instead of focusing on legacy content that is 3-10 years old, much of which sees very limited use, we will work to create new public content that includes accessible features.... moving our content behind authentication allows us to better protect instructor intellectual property from “pirates” who have reused content for personal profit without consent. Ah, so this is actually just an opportunity to reset some decisions made 10 years ago about how open they wanted to be with their content.