5 ms·

I share a similar viewpoint. Wouldn't it be a better usage of funds to donate to these projects for caption support instead of using those funds to pay attorney

I share a similar viewpoint. Wouldn't it be a better usage of funds to donate to these projects for caption support instead of using those funds to pay attorneys? Why is it so hard to be constructive?

jdreaver 12y ago
Agreed. Really, I do applaud people going out of their way to accommodate others. If I had just one personal, direct request to create closed captions along with a "please," you bet I would try to help someone out. But making it illegal not to do so puts a sour taste in my mouth.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
harperlee 12y ago
To play devil's advocate, if you fund the captioning, fewer people will do it for free. But yes, the current option is distasteful.
- chc 12y ago
  > To play devil's advocate, if you fund the captioning, fewer people will do it for free. Not necessarily. They still aren't obligated to close-caption any materials for free — they just have to not provide any materials.
sp332 12y ago
Deaf people aren't a charity case. The content needs to be accessible from the beginning, not as an afterthought.
- Someone1234 12y ago
  That's a confusing sentiment. So deaf people shouldn't be given something for free, but they should get something for free "from the beginning?" Which is it?
  - sp332 12y ago
    The communication needs to be made accessible by the person or group who produces it. Not by some outside organization that goes around cleaning up other people's accessibility messes.
    - Someone1234 12y ago
      Fair enough. So you're saying that deaf people ARE a charity case, you just want them to be a charity case for the original content producer rather than a third party?
      - sp332 12y ago
        Yeah, that could have been clearer. Deaf people are 100% as deserving of this content as non-deaf people. They should not be treated as a separate group. Captions are a required part of the distribution, not an optional add-on. There is not "the real message" and then "the message for deaf people".
        deleted 12y ago
        [deleted]
        ars 12y ago
        So would you rather they don't distribute it at all, if they can't (or won't) caption it? (Not a rhetorical question, I'm actually asking you.) Keep in mind that these are recordings of a professor talking - there is no script, no captions exist already. The choice is paying for captioning, or not releasing at all. If they are unwilling to pay, which should, in your opinion, they pick: Not release, or release without captions?
Agustus 12y ago
Then how would the attorneys keep their job and fund their lavish lifestyle?

jdreaver 12y ago

Agreed. Really, I do applaud people going out of their way to accommodate others. If I had just one personal, direct request to create closed captions along with a "please," you bet I would try to help someone out. But making it illegal not to do so puts a sour taste in my mouth.

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

harperlee 12y ago

To play devil's advocate, if you fund the captioning, fewer people will do it for free. But yes, the current option is distasteful.

chc 12y ago
> To play devil's advocate, if you fund the captioning, fewer people will do it for free. Not necessarily. They still aren't obligated to close-caption any materials for free — they just have to not provide any materials.

sp332 12y ago

Deaf people aren't a charity case. The content needs to be accessible from the beginning, not as an afterthought.

Someone1234 12y ago
That's a confusing sentiment. So deaf people shouldn't be given something for free, but they should get something for free "from the beginning?" Which is it?
- sp332 12y ago
  The communication needs to be made accessible by the person or group who produces it. Not by some outside organization that goes around cleaning up other people's accessibility messes.
  - Someone1234 12y ago
    Fair enough. So you're saying that deaf people ARE a charity case, you just want them to be a charity case for the original content producer rather than a third party?
    - sp332 12y ago
      Yeah, that could have been clearer. Deaf people are 100% as deserving of this content as non-deaf people. They should not be treated as a separate group. Captions are a required part of the distribution, not an optional add-on. There is not "the real message" and then "the message for deaf people".
      - deleted 12y ago
        [deleted]
      - ars 12y ago
        So would you rather they don't distribute it at all, if they can't (or won't) caption it? (Not a rhetorical question, I'm actually asking you.) Keep in mind that these are recordings of a professor talking - there is no script, no captions exist already. The choice is paying for captioning, or not releasing at all. If they are unwilling to pay, which should, in your opinion, they pick: Not release, or release without captions?

Agustus 12y ago

Then how would the attorneys keep their job and fund their lavish lifestyle?