4 ms·

This doesn't make sense to me. Surely Netflix is, basically, a shop that sells access to other peoples content (ignoring the hosting, etc...) In that case, requ

This doesn't make sense to me. Surely Netflix is, basically, a shop that sells access to other peoples content (ignoring the hosting, etc...) In that case, requiring them to close caption all of their content would be like requiring Amazon to close caption all of the DVD's they sell. Also, they can't possibly have the right (as was alluded to in the article) to modify these films without permission. Finally, can you imagine the resources required to do this. I do not know how many films and tv shows Netflix hosts, but surely it is in the thousands, or even tens of thousands. (More?)

Digit-Al 14y ago
I notice from a lot of the comments that there seems to be a certain amount of confusion about making a site accessible and making content accessible. Yes, shops are required to be accessible (ramps, etc...) but they are not required to make sure that everything they sell is suitable for people with disabilities. A cinema will be accessible, but not all of the films they show will be sub-titled. In the same way, commercial web sites should be accessible, but surely they can't be forced to try to make everything they sell suitable for those with disabilities. If films are available with captions, then they should try to make them available with captions - but surely they can't be forced to add captions to films and TV shows that don't already have them. That responsibility should surely be shouldered by the producer of the media.
protomyth 14y ago
If it holds, they will probably have to remove all uncaptioned video. Amazon might want to look at what they sell for lawsuit purposes. I am a little less worried about Netflix and a little more worried about live video streams and videos hosted on individual websites. Sending out ADA lawsuits is a full time job for some lawyers and most are pay money to settle types. For example, the rules going into effect (delayed until after the election) for hotel pools pretty much mean that the Mom & Pop or non-chain hotels will close their pools. The cost of new equipment is pretty high and most just don't have the space to install it. Defending against lawsuits is not terribly fun.

Digit-Al 14y ago

I notice from a lot of the comments that there seems to be a certain amount of confusion about making a site accessible and making content accessible. Yes, shops are required to be accessible (ramps, etc...) but they are not required to make sure that everything they sell is suitable for people with disabilities. A cinema will be accessible, but not all of the films they show will be sub-titled. In the same way, commercial web sites should be accessible, but surely they can't be forced to try to make everything they sell suitable for those with disabilities. If films are available with captions, then they should try to make them available with captions - but surely they can't be forced to add captions to films and TV shows that don't already have them. That responsibility should surely be shouldered by the producer of the media.

protomyth 14y ago

If it holds, they will probably have to remove all uncaptioned video. Amazon might want to look at what they sell for lawsuit purposes. I am a little less worried about Netflix and a little more worried about live video streams and videos hosted on individual websites. Sending out ADA lawsuits is a full time job for some lawyers and most are pay money to settle types. For example, the rules going into effect (delayed until after the election) for hotel pools pretty much mean that the Mom & Pop or non-chain hotels will close their pools. The cost of new equipment is pretty high and most just don't have the space to install it. Defending against lawsuits is not terribly fun.