10 ms·

When it comes to individual works, I don't see how this would have any bearing on your product. You're not beholden to the ADA in your creative works, from what

When it comes to individual works, I don't see how this would have any bearing on your product. You're not beholden to the ADA in your creative works, from what I understand. Double the exemption for making something for free. It's the institutionalization of education that is being called out here, in that Harvard et al receive compensation (advertisement is a form of compensation - see: radio airplay) for these products and do not maintain quality standards respective of existing laws. No musician has to include a print out of their lyrics in the liner notes, it's a completely voluntary transaction without stipulation of such ADA compliance, in that the terms of the relationship are different than this case where Harvard is a 'service provider' of sorts (the service being the transmission of knowledge). This is different than the occasional lawsuit trolling where a person in a wheelchair finds small businesses not in compliance with the ADA and brings a case...this is...well, an educational institution with the resources and capability for compliance, but they aren't complying. Seems pretty workable from a high-level standpoint to me.

jdreaver 12y ago
I understand that the law may not strictly apply to me. I am making a statement on the principle of the situation. I don't think MIT or Harvard should be forced to provide captions for their videos either.
- 6stringmerc 12y ago
  Well, I think you're misapplying your principle in this instance. I think Harvard or MIT should have to provide captions in the spirit of the law that exists. It's not like the ADA was passed last year, so to think that the physical Harvard/MIT facilities would be ADA compliant but online facilities would not strikes me as a necessary coming to grips with the law as it's written. Hence the lawyers will fight this out and we'll probably get an answer.
  - fennecfoxen 12y ago
    For the purposes of armchair moralizing, who cares about the law as written? Pretend we're making the law, instead of deferring to the law as written. Should we in fact tell them "it is illegal for you to put out this material to benefit much of humanity, without also expending additional effort to benefit the deaf part of humanity?"
    - jerf 12y ago
      For the second time today, I can't resist pointing out that Harvard would, in any other circumstance, be rushing to tell everybody else about how important it is to be inclusive and scrupulously comply with not just the letter "as written", but the spirit of the law. Whatever slack I might be inclined to give to others, I am not inclined to give to Harvard. This is Harvard. If the brand "Harvard" means anything, shouldn't it mean going above and beyond the call of duty in providing educational services like this?
      - fennecfoxen 12y ago
        In light of Harvard's rhetoric, it is reasonable to expect excellence of this sort. However, with respect to rhetoric about the spirit of a law, it seems to be that they ought to receive charges of hypocrisy. The civil lawsuit is a step above and beyond this, and I for one don't know that "poetic justice" is the best foundation for a legal regime...
    - fnordfnordfnord 12y ago
      My understanding of the law is that a reasonable accommodation must be made when requested, not that everything must always be ADA compliant for all disabilities. One may conceive of different disabilities for which two reasonable accommodations might be mutually exclusive, so requiring two or more mutually exclusive accommodations to always be present is by definition unreasonable. Of course, it isn't impossible or unreasonable to caption a video; but it might be so expensive to caption all videos as to have the result that some just won't bother to post them. That would be unfortunate.
    - balls187 12y ago
  - toomuchtodo 12y ago
    > I think Harvard or MIT should have to provide captions in the spirit of the law that exists. As long as you're willing to pay for it, you can take this stance.
- murbard2 12y ago
  I agree with you and find it immoral to compel MIT and Harvard to close caption their courses. This is because I embrace a deontological ethic. If I were to be the devil's advocate however, I would say that the difference between you putting a video out there, and MIT doing it is one of elasticity. The effort of putting closed captions on your informal video would be much too great and would be very likely to prevent you from releasing the video. However, for large, well endowed organisations like MIT and Harvard, mandating close captioning of their videos is much more likely to result in them incurring the cost of closed captioning than in them not releasing the video. By focusing on businesses, the law attempts to target those inelastic actors.
  - jamesbrownuhh 12y ago
    > The effort of putting closed captions on your informal video would be much too great. $1 per minute (if you farm it out) or even less if you do it yourself. In exchange you get 7-15% more views - is that really an unbearable deal?
    - murbard2 12y ago
      It totally depends on your means, your audience, your goals, etc.
    - Crito 12y ago
      Wikipedia suggests that it costs more like $40 per minute. For movies anyway. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rear_Window_Captioning_System http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rear_Window_Captioning_System I have no idea why it would be "even less if you do it yourself", unless you do not value your own labour.
      - jamesbrownuhh 12y ago
        Captioning celluloid film is a wholly different thing to transcribing an online video - the prices are in no way comparable. I create captions for hundreds of hours of video every year - I know exactly how much work it can be, and, at the same time, exactly how easy it can be.
- eli 12y ago
  So lobby to change the law?
  - seanflyon 12y ago
    Perhaps a good first step would be to have a discussion "For the purposes of armchair moralizing", not about the law as it is written, but how it should be.
    - handojin 12y ago
      Why? To discuss the law 'as it should be' invites nothing but a cacophony of opinion. On what basis could such a conversation proceed? If I were uncharitable, I would suggest that such a discussion would serve only one function: that is , to create a distraction from the law 'as is'. I'd prefer to assume your intent is to understand or construct a notion of morality. In that spirit, I offer the following question: What is just?
- handojin 12y ago
  Harvard and MIT receive (accept) grants from the federal government for producing their content. It's reasonable to expect that in making this content available, they will accommodate all taxpayers. IOW, I'm not sure you understand the principle of the situation.

jdreaver 12y ago

I understand that the law may not strictly apply to me. I am making a statement on the principle of the situation. I don't think MIT or Harvard should be forced to provide captions for their videos either.

6stringmerc 12y ago
Well, I think you're misapplying your principle in this instance. I think Harvard or MIT should have to provide captions in the spirit of the law that exists. It's not like the ADA was passed last year, so to think that the physical Harvard/MIT facilities would be ADA compliant but online facilities would not strikes me as a necessary coming to grips with the law as it's written. Hence the lawyers will fight this out and we'll probably get an answer.
- fennecfoxen 12y ago
  For the purposes of armchair moralizing, who cares about the law as written? Pretend we're making the law, instead of deferring to the law as written. Should we in fact tell them "it is illegal for you to put out this material to benefit much of humanity, without also expending additional effort to benefit the deaf part of humanity?"
  - jerf 12y ago
    For the second time today, I can't resist pointing out that Harvard would, in any other circumstance, be rushing to tell everybody else about how important it is to be inclusive and scrupulously comply with not just the letter "as written", but the spirit of the law. Whatever slack I might be inclined to give to others, I am not inclined to give to Harvard. This is Harvard. If the brand "Harvard" means anything, shouldn't it mean going above and beyond the call of duty in providing educational services like this?
    - fennecfoxen 12y ago
      In light of Harvard's rhetoric, it is reasonable to expect excellence of this sort. However, with respect to rhetoric about the spirit of a law, it seems to be that they ought to receive charges of hypocrisy. The civil lawsuit is a step above and beyond this, and I for one don't know that "poetic justice" is the best foundation for a legal regime...
  - fnordfnordfnord 12y ago
    My understanding of the law is that a reasonable accommodation must be made when requested, not that everything must always be ADA compliant for all disabilities. One may conceive of different disabilities for which two reasonable accommodations might be mutually exclusive, so requiring two or more mutually exclusive accommodations to always be present is by definition unreasonable. Of course, it isn't impossible or unreasonable to caption a video; but it might be so expensive to caption all videos as to have the result that some just won't bother to post them. That would be unfortunate.
  - balls187 12y ago
- toomuchtodo 12y ago
  > I think Harvard or MIT should have to provide captions in the spirit of the law that exists. As long as you're willing to pay for it, you can take this stance.
murbard2 12y ago
I agree with you and find it immoral to compel MIT and Harvard to close caption their courses. This is because I embrace a deontological ethic. If I were to be the devil's advocate however, I would say that the difference between you putting a video out there, and MIT doing it is one of elasticity. The effort of putting closed captions on your informal video would be much too great and would be very likely to prevent you from releasing the video. However, for large, well endowed organisations like MIT and Harvard, mandating close captioning of their videos is much more likely to result in them incurring the cost of closed captioning than in them not releasing the video. By focusing on businesses, the law attempts to target those inelastic actors.
- jamesbrownuhh 12y ago
  > The effort of putting closed captions on your informal video would be much too great. $1 per minute (if you farm it out) or even less if you do it yourself. In exchange you get 7-15% more views - is that really an unbearable deal?
  - murbard2 12y ago
    It totally depends on your means, your audience, your goals, etc.
  - Crito 12y ago
    Wikipedia suggests that it costs more like $40 per minute. For movies anyway. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rear_Window_Captioning_System http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rear_Window_Captioning_System I have no idea why it would be "even less if you do it yourself", unless you do not value your own labour.
    - jamesbrownuhh 12y ago
      Captioning celluloid film is a wholly different thing to transcribing an online video - the prices are in no way comparable. I create captions for hundreds of hours of video every year - I know exactly how much work it can be, and, at the same time, exactly how easy it can be.
eli 12y ago
So lobby to change the law?
- seanflyon 12y ago
  Perhaps a good first step would be to have a discussion "For the purposes of armchair moralizing", not about the law as it is written, but how it should be.
  - handojin 12y ago
    Why? To discuss the law 'as it should be' invites nothing but a cacophony of opinion. On what basis could such a conversation proceed? If I were uncharitable, I would suggest that such a discussion would serve only one function: that is , to create a distraction from the law 'as is'. I'd prefer to assume your intent is to understand or construct a notion of morality. In that spirit, I offer the following question: What is just?
handojin 12y ago
Harvard and MIT receive (accept) grants from the federal government for producing their content. It's reasonable to expect that in making this content available, they will accommodate all taxpayers. IOW, I'm not sure you understand the principle of the situation.