3 ms·

a) this is awesome. b) might want to rethink the name. there is a reason closed captions are called closed, and it's to differentiate them from, well, open cap

by bgruber 14y ago

a) this is awesome. b) might want to rethink the name. there is a reason closed captions are called closed, and it's to differentiate them from, well, open captions. if this project becomes a big success (and i really, really hope it does) i'd hate to see an increase in confusion for the accessibility community, which has enough trouble getting people to be aware of the different technologies. Go ask an employee at a movie theater showing open captions about open captions. they won't know what you're talking about.

slifty 14y ago
Thanks for the feedback! I did do a quick look into it up front and my gut feeling was that since "opened" and "open" were different it might be OK. I liked the meaning of "Opened Captions." Still a very valid point, and that concern won't go away any time soon. Happy to consider suggestions, and will stew on it more myself as well.
- jpdoctor 14y ago
  Another vote for: You really need a different name. Open is taken; a small token variation on that word will mislead folks. How about "streamed captions"? Also: The rebroadcasting copyrights have to be fraught with issues. Any comments on that?
  - slifty 14y ago
    Fiiiiiiiiinnnneeeeeeeeeeeee. X( As for the CC issues, I'm starting with C-SPAN simply because there is a lot more precedent for legal non-commercial fair use. Using this for other situations is another question. Based on a cursory exploration it seems that there is a strong argument for programmatically accesible syndication being legal in most cases. This means that it is probably fine to use the stream to made a visualization / application that doesn't actually render the transcript to a user, but is simply based on it. Also, any application that renders the captions but is dedicated to accessibility seems like it may be protected by the law. Long story short, I'll need to look into it; for now I'm banking on the service as it stands being fair use, which I legitimately believe it is.

by bgruber 14y ago

slifty 14y ago

Thanks for the feedback! I did do a quick look into it up front and my gut feeling was that since "opened" and "open" were different it might be OK. I liked the meaning of "Opened Captions." Still a very valid point, and that concern won't go away any time soon. Happy to consider suggestions, and will stew on it more myself as well.

jpdoctor 14y ago
Another vote for: You really need a different name. Open is taken; a small token variation on that word will mislead folks. How about "streamed captions"? Also: The rebroadcasting copyrights have to be fraught with issues. Any comments on that?
- slifty 14y ago
  Fiiiiiiiiinnnneeeeeeeeeeeee. X( As for the CC issues, I'm starting with C-SPAN simply because there is a lot more precedent for legal non-commercial fair use. Using this for other situations is another question. Based on a cursory exploration it seems that there is a strong argument for programmatically accesible syndication being legal in most cases. This means that it is probably fine to use the stream to made a visualization / application that doesn't actually render the transcript to a user, but is simply based on it. Also, any application that renders the captions but is dedicated to accessibility seems like it may be protected by the law. Long story short, I'll need to look into it; for now I'm banking on the service as it stands being fair use, which I legitimately believe it is.