Countries That Don't Put In Place Copyright Regimes The US Likes May Be Deemed 'Cybersecurity Concerns'

Websites Deemed 'Place Of Public Accommodation' Under The ADA; Expects Lots Of Sites To Get Sued

from the or-move dept

Fri, Jun 29th 2012 8:34am — Mike Masnick

Professor Eric Goldman is quite reasonably worried about a recent ruling in a case the National Assocation of the Deaf brought against Netflix, claiming it was a violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) to not have closed captioning. Never mind the fact that this flies in the face of a ton of precedent (none of which is cited). Goldman is reasonably concerned that this could have a massive impact on all kinds of websites:

If websites must comply with the ADA, all hell will break loose. Could YouTube be obligated to close-caption videos on the site? (This case seems to leave that door open.) Could every website using Flash have to redesign their sites for browsers that read the screen? I'm not creative enough to think of all the implications, but I can assure you that ADA plaintiffs' lawyers will have a long checklist of items worth suing over. Big companies may be able to afford the compliance and litigation costs, but the entry costs for new market participants could easily reach prohibitive levels.

The key issue is whether or not a website is a place of public accommodation, which this court ruled it was, despite plenty of other rulings that went the other way:

The most crucial ruling is where the court says that a website qualifies as a "place of public accommodation." The court deviated from--and, incredibly, didn't cite to--a nearly unbroken line of precedent rejecting that conclusion. I don't have a complete roster of cases in this area, but cases that came to mind include Noah v. AOL (a Title II case), Access Now v. Southwest Airlines (an 11th Circuit case), Stern v. Sony, Young v. Facebook and Ouellette v. Viacom. The only plaintiff win in this area is the offbeat National Federation of the Blind v. Target case (which this court did cite), where the court held that Target's obligations to comply with the ADA in its offline retail stores extended to its website. Because of its fact-specific nature, the Target ruling really hasn't had much of an impact on Internet litigation over the past 6 years.

Bypassing all of this precedent, the judge instead relies almost exclusively on the heavily-criticized First Circuit Carparts decision from 1994. The NAD made a crafty venue move suing in a court bound by Carparts. Even so, I wonder how this ruling would fare on appeal to the First Circuit (if Netflix goes that route), and I wonder if judges in other circuits will be persuaded by this judge's ruling.

Of course, some have pointed out in response that this isn't that big of a deal, because of the ADA's "undue hardship" clause, which lets companies avoid accommodating the ADA if it presents an "undue hardship." While that may limit the most egregious cases, it still creates a ton of problems. The "undue hardship" clause is only a defense, and it's judged on a case-by-case basis, where the standards are incredibly vague and it has been described as a high bar to meet. Plus, the entire burden is put on the company (in this case, website), so there will likely be tons of lawsuits against websites until the actual standard for what counts as "undue hardship" is cleared up.

Even more insane in all of this is the one issue that Goldman only briefly alluded to in his piece: the requirement for closed captioning presents a massive potential copyright issue. We've seen people get in trouble for providing subtitles already. So suddenly this creates a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation: provide closed captioning and get sued for copyright infringement, or don't and get sued for ADA violations. Is copyright infringement (and a possible lawsuit?) an "undue hardship?" Who knows.

Of course, the paragraph above points out another issue with this ruling: that this is really an issue for the movie studios, not Netflix. Blaming Netflix is blaming the wrong party. Of course, the judge didn't seem to care about that. When Netflix raised that issue, the judge said that "this argument lacks traction" because the judge has already decided that Netflix is a place of public accommodation, and that's all that matters.

Hopefully Netflix successfully appeals this ruling. Otherwise, we're about to be in for a whole bunch of ADA claims against websites until the "boundaries" are worked out. For lots of small websites, such lawsuits could be extremely expensive and damaging.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: accessibility, ada, closed captioning
Companies: netflix

91 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Designerfx (profile), 29 Jun 2012 @ 8:39am

this is kind of tough
It really is Netflix's fault that have not pushed to support captioning better, and not just for deaf folks.

With that said, I'm sure this isn't the best way to go about fixing that issue.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 29 Jun 2012 @ 8:43am

Don't like something? Sue! It's the American way. Stupid dumbass country.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 29 Jun 2012 @ 8:48am

I'm confused. Are movie theaters required to provide closed captioning? I don't recall ever watching a movie with those little black and white bars across the bottom. At least, not a movie in english.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

Anonymous Coward, 29 Jun 2012 @ 8:48am

Hypocrisy!
So one-eyed Pirate Mike has no compassion for the blind? Or for us trolls who are deaf to any logical arguments? What hypocrisy!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
E. Zachary Knight (profile), 29 Jun 2012 @ 8:48am

Re: this is kind of tough
How is it Netflix's fault? Here is a hypothetical conversation between Netflix and a movie studio:

Netflix: Hey movie company. Our customers want closed captioning on all your movies. Will you give us permission to turn that on?
Movie Exec: What?!? That would cut into our DVD's selling points. If people could watch the movie online with closed captioning, they wouldn't need to buy the DVD. That would kill our revenue. Of course you cannot turn them on.
Netflix: It's what our customers want. Maybe we will do it anyway.
Movie Exec: If you do that, we will sue you out of existence for copyright infringement.

See how that works? This is not in Netflix's ability. It is out of their hands.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
el_segfaulto (profile), 29 Jun 2012 @ 8:48am

I hate this too
But...if you design your site correctly and do NOT use Flash then it should already be completely compliant. I work for the government and a fair chunk of my time is spent making sure my sites are in compliance, problem is that I'm a developer and not a designer...anyway if other people want I can link to some of the tools that I use, including the ones that I wrote myself.

With that said, I am adamantly against legislation like this.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 29 Jun 2012 @ 8:58am

They should've waited until the judge was sober before having him preside. A jury needs to be composed of peers, not pink elephants.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 29 Jun 2012 @ 8:59am

Flash
Could every website using Flash have to redesign their sites for browsers that read the screen?

I don't agree with a government mandate, but sites should be implementing graceful degradation or progressive enhancement anyway. In my opinion a site that won't work without Flash is already broken. It's sad how many major web sites just show blank pages or broken links to users with unexpected configurations�it seems one is lucky to even get a �this site isn't compatible with your browser� message.

(Thanks, Mike, for making this site functional without Javascript.)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
A Guy (profile), 29 Jun 2012 @ 9:00am

Really tough one
On one hand, this will require a lot of redesign if it's allowed to stand.

On the other hand, think of the implications for the data mining companies. The ADA may be exactly what we need to get data mining companies away from insurance companies and future employers.

On balance, it may be worth it.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/kashmirhill/2012/06/15/data-mining-ceo-says-he-pays-for-burgers-i n-cash-to-avoid-junk-food-purchases-being-tracked/
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Designerfx (profile), 29 Jun 2012 @ 9:02am

Re: Re: this is kind of tough
They can add closed captions with zero required from the studios. Just find a way to run it through google's live captioning equivalent.

Movie studios don't really hold any authority over captioning if they don't provide it, as far as I've ever heard. Or am I wrong? Netflix could even do this citing support of the ADA without a lawsuit.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
GMacGuffin (profile), 29 Jun 2012 @ 9:04am

Friggin' ADA Trolls Rejoice
Hey, I'm all about access and such, but I'm sick of ADA trolls overreaching where's not necessary or practical. E.g., all the corner store parking in my hood. One corner store at a busy fustercluck 5-way intersection now has .8 of a parking space, since a local ADA troll forced them to put a disabled spot there. I drive by there daily and have never once seen it used. Sometimes reality should step in...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 29 Jun 2012 @ 9:04am

Re: Re: Re: this is kind of tough
Movie studios don't really hold any authority over captioning if they don't provide it, as far as I've ever heard. Or am I wrong?

There have been several cases of individuals providing unauthorized captions being sued successfully.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 29 Jun 2012 @ 9:07am

man... the internet is becoming risky business

i thought it was just serious business

i am convinced the ultimate goal of big content and big gov is to make the barrier to entry extremely high and only available to the rich
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Ninja (profile), 29 Jun 2012 @ 9:15am

Ah the disabled... I'm all for making as much content and infra-structure accessible but srsly?

Ah the children... I'm all for protecting the children from harm...

Ah the [insert minority or weak group here]...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Beta (profile), 29 Jun 2012 @ 9:16am

Re: Really tough one
Walk me through this one, would you? I can't follow your logic at all. Are you saying that even though the ADA can wreck some online businesses we should tolerate it because the data mining business might be among them?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
E. Zachary Knight (profile), 29 Jun 2012 @ 9:22am

Re: Re: Re: this is kind of tough
It is copyright infringement to provide captions for films and tv shows without the permission of the copyright holder. So no, Netflix cannot do it and the ADA is not a defense for it. Even if Netflix eventually won the copyright infringement lawsuit using the ADA as a defense, they would have spent millions of unnecessary dollars and many unnecessary years in court to do so. Potentially bankrupting them. If they do end up surviving the lawsuit, they will not survive the withdrawal of uncooperative movie and television studios.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
E. Zachary Knight (profile), 29 Jun 2012 @ 9:26am

Re: I hate this too
But none of that helps when the complaint is that you are using uncaptioned video.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
A Guy (profile), 29 Jun 2012 @ 9:31am

Re: Re: Really tough one
Not exactly.

I don't think it will wreck any businesses. It will require some redesign, and a few new classes built into java, but there is no reason that it can't be done. I think it will wreck the very worst abuses of data mining, not the whole industry, and I'm okay with that.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Chosen Reject (profile), 29 Jun 2012 @ 9:32am

Re:
I don't know if they are required, but I know the theater near me has devices on request that show the captions.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
TtfnJohn (profile), 29 Jun 2012 @ 9:35am

Re: Hypocrisy!
You might want to re-read the post because it's about closed captioning which doesn't do much for the blind who can't see the screen anyway but it's an association that that represents deaf people in the United States that brought the suit.

What Mike is pointing out is the cost of compliance with this ruling and, often, the near impossibility of it as the site owner could very well land in a copyright infringement lawsuit should they provide closed captioning in many cases should the rights owner not have provided it to the site.

This is a case of dueling precedence where copyright may overrule the need for sites to provide closed captioning. I may not have said that well but one requirement may smack up against the brick walls of another one.

This sort of thing gets nothing done for the deaf or for site owners.

As for blind people there are long standing ways built into HTML, PHP and so on that take care of telling the blind person what's on the screen and, in many cases, reading it to them.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Lord Binky, 29 Jun 2012 @ 9:41am

Re:
That's exactly my thought process.. Google just needs to bring suit against all the major theater chains for violation of the ADA by not providing subtitles on all their movies. They already had to acommidate wheelchairs so they'll have to do the closed caption as well. That would be a good starting point to hold over the theaters and therefore the movie studios head for negotiating decent terms.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Lord Binky, 29 Jun 2012 @ 9:44am

Re: Hypocrisy!
Yeah... there's places where compassion is already misapplied. Like why do blind and deaf get access to handicap parking that would be more appropriatly used by someone that is limited in the walking ability, either distance or duration....
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Rich Kulawiec, 29 Jun 2012 @ 9:47am

Re: Flash
One of the most useful exercises for any web designer is to try out their own site in a text-only browser (e.g., w3m). If its basic functions, including navigation, still work, then that's a good sign. But if it's not even possible to read the site's home page, then there are serious problems.

This doesn't mean that sites can't have advanced features that depend on bells-and-whistles: they can. But it does mean that basic site functionality shouldn't rely on them.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 29 Jun 2012 @ 9:49am

If the judge was smart they'd only make the ruling apply to for-profit videos, as in mostly just hollywood made ones. Much more reasonable and less restrictive.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Beta (profile), 29 Jun 2012 @ 9:49am

Re: Re: Re: Really tough one
1) What "redesign" could bring Netflix into compliance?
2) What "few new classes" must be built into Java?
3) What should all websites that could run foul of the ADA do unless/until those new classes are built into Java?
4) How will the ADA wreck the very worst abuses of data mining?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Vincent Clement (profile), 29 Jun 2012 @ 9:50am

Re: Friggin' ADA Trolls Rejoice
The best is when someone does use that parking spot, the person with the disability is not in the vehicle.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Dreddsnik, 29 Jun 2012 @ 9:52am

" For lots of small websites, such lawsuits could be extremely expensive and damaging. "

And the real reason shows itself. Though NetFlix isn't so small anymore it is a thorn in the industries side. It successfully competes with free and they have been trying for a very long time to cripple it. Netflix may survive this due to their size, but smaller sites and startups ( competition ) won't even make it through the door.
Anything that can wreck Netflix or any other similar service is a win in the industry's misguided minds.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 29 Jun 2012 @ 10:00am

Re: Re: Hypocrisy!
Woooosh
[ link to this | view in thread ]
DS, 29 Jun 2012 @ 10:18am

Re:
*Places tin-foil hat on head*

I wonder if the major content providers have anything to do with this lawsuit?

*Removes tin-foil hat*
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 29 Jun 2012 @ 10:24am

Is there some reason to treat companies doing business on the internet differently than others on matters like this?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
A Guy (profile), 29 Jun 2012 @ 10:25am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Really tough one
1) Netflix would have to create or license some close captioned streams to go with their offerings. If they have a decent contract that allows them latitude in making changes to comply with federal laws that shouldn't be too high a barrier.

2) To me, java seems like a good place to start for implementing some speech to text for youtube, netflix, or whoever. I'm betting youtube could even require users to do it in their TOS. These things don't have to be perfect. I often turn on the news with low volume and CC while I'm busy. The CC are never exactly right. Sometimes, it's not even close to right. If TV is any precedent, all you have to do is make a minimal effort.

3) IANAL and I don't have more than a passing familiarity with ADA law. Don't companies usually have a reasonable amount of time to implement after being sued? I don't think you have to close down your store immediately because you forgot to paint in a handicapped spot.

4) If ADA law is going to be enforced on the internet, how long will it be for companies who see you visited a page devoted to a drug, medical condition, eating habits, or other things that may be covered under ADA to start watching their step? If that data mining executive is worried about his insurance finding out about his eating habits, maybe it indicates they're looking to target potentially obese people. I have also heard stories that some companies sell the fact you looked at pages concerning STD medications to HR departments.

Personally, I'm in decent health but who knows what could happen tomorrow? The whole practice is creepy.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
A Guy (profile), 29 Jun 2012 @ 10:34am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Really tough one
Hell, if good progress is made in this area, I may retire some of my favorite browser addons and further support the sites I like.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
TDR, 29 Jun 2012 @ 10:39am

Perhaps Netflix's response to the ADA should go something like this:

"What? What did you say? I can't hear you! What?"
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 29 Jun 2012 @ 10:54am

Re:
Add to that the fact that we've gone from "majority rules" to having to bend to the will of every minority out there.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Rekrul, 29 Jun 2012 @ 10:55am

Re: I hate this too
But...if you design your site correctly and do NOT use Flash then it should already be completely compliant.

Design a web site without Flash??? But how else are you going to put in all the useless eye-candy to keep today's ADD afflicted kids interested?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 29 Jun 2012 @ 10:58am

Re: Re: Hypocrisy!
Handicapped-only parking spaces are like whites-only drinking fountains.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Rekrul, 29 Jun 2012 @ 10:58am

Re: Re: Flash
A text-only browser? You're lucky if most sites still work on a browser from a couple years ago.

Until recently, I was using an older system with Firefox 2.0 and there were tons of sites that wouldn't display correctly. YouTube pages didn't display the thumbnails. Other sites were so messed up that if you didn't know where to look for it, some of the content was hidden.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 29 Jun 2012 @ 10:59am

#$#@$^&*^#(%* ADA lawyers.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Rekrul, 29 Jun 2012 @ 11:01am

I certainly hope that the judge's courtroom regularly has sign-language interpreters for any deaf people who might be in attendance...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Simple Mind (profile), 29 Jun 2012 @ 11:03am

Re: Re:
Then it must be required!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
ComputerAddict (profile), 29 Jun 2012 @ 11:09am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Really tough one
1) There is no way Netflix got a decent contract from any studio. Hence why others have been sued for user-generated captions.

2) Java seems like a horrible idea for the web. The whole Premise of HTML5 is to incorporate higher level programming and media so we don't have to keep downloading plugins and runtime environments. The web is trying to move to a unified language, not segmented.

3) Also IANAL, but I am a junior architect and have read large portions of the "ADA Standards for Accessible Design" and have had to apply it in almost daily life (It makes restaurant conversations really boring as you talk to colleagues about how their toilet paper holders in their bathrooms are mounted too high.) ADA Compliance typically is required for a certificate of occupancy, older locations are grandfathered until the building / area undergoes renovation. But if you were suppose to meet a certain code when you opened, yes they can shut you down that day if they want to. Similarly to if you violate a Fire Code.

4) Data Mining and ADA Regulations have nothing to do with each other. ADA doesn't mine data, ADA doesn't have logs of visits, that would be the webhost / domain register, and really is a completely separate topic.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
ComputerAddict (profile), 29 Jun 2012 @ 11:13am

Re:
Nope, so like AC said above, when they require CC's in Physical Theaters, we'll look into it online.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Travis, 29 Jun 2012 @ 11:21am

Re: this is kind of tough
I agree with you 100%. I am actually deaf myself, but don't agree with suing netflix for this. That being said, DMCA and copyright are NOT a deaf person's friend. If we can't get a movie with subtitles, we either have to;

Pirate a movie from another source and add subtitles or
Break the digital locks to turn the movie into an AVI file and then add subtitles

And of course, we don't have too much trouble finding subtitles... yet. I dread the day when THOSE get driven underground. All because some asshats who don't want to give us decent subtitling want to take away the ability to do so for ourselves as well.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
el_segfaulto (profile), 29 Jun 2012 @ 11:23am

Re: Re: I hate this too
As long as the marquee and blink tags aren't deprecated, there shall be a way.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Travis, 29 Jun 2012 @ 11:23am

Re:
Presently, YES movie theaters now provide captioning. There are several theatres where I live that provide it, but they give us a device that's basically like a teleprompter. That way you hearing folks don't get bugged by the captions and WE can still enjoy the movie along with you.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Travis, 29 Jun 2012 @ 11:25am

Re:
That joke is so fucking tired we deaf people have long stopped laughing.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Vidiot (profile), 29 Jun 2012 @ 11:49am

"The key issue is whether or not a website is a place of public accommodation..."
I think that means that websites have to provide public restrooms, too. ADA-compliant, of course.
(Cue toilet-humor joke equating reader comments to human waste, etc.)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Beta (profile), 29 Jun 2012 @ 11:57am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Really tough one
1) That is not "some redesign", that is a radical change of business model that would be legally impossible without the cooperation of third parties, and in any case could easily change a viable, innovative business into a non-starter. Calling that "some redesign" is like calling aggressive chemotherapy "an adjustment of diet".

2) Ah, you want a free, open-source speech-to-text library for Java. Built and maintained by Somebody Else.

3) If the implementation is impossible or would break the business (as is often the case with ADA), having "a reasonable time to implement" isn't worth much.

4) What?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
members only, 29 Jun 2012 @ 12:14pm

Do private and member-only clubs have to be ADA-compliant?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Andrew F (profile), 29 Jun 2012 @ 12:14pm

Ugh ...
Of course, the paragraph above points out another issue with this ruling: that this is really an issue for the movie studios, not Netflix. Blaming Netflix is blaming the wrong party. Of course, the judge didn't seem to care about that. When Netflix raised that issue, the judge said that "this argument lacks traction" because the judge has already decided that Netflix is a place of public accommodation, and that's all that matters.

But that's actually super-relevant to whether Netflix is a place of public accommodation! With physical places, the store owner owns the entire premises, and therefore has the legal right to make changes to the premises, like adding a ramp. But websites don't always "own" all of the content that they're displaying -- whether it's the Facebook share buttons, third-party ads, or the movies being shown on Netflix. They simply don't have the legal right to add "ramps".

Note that this is distinct from the "undue hardship" issue. Undue hardship is about whether adding ramps would be feasible -- e.g. you don't add a wheelchair ramp to your treehouse. Here, we're discussing the basic legal right to do something.

That key distinction is a HUGE difference between physical and virtual places of public accommodation, and evidence that there's no way Congress intended for the ADA to include the latter.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 29 Jun 2012 @ 12:21pm

Blind Sites
If something like this becomes law, what's to stop the Blind from suing websites because they can't see them?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Andrew F (profile), 29 Jun 2012 @ 12:38pm

Re: Blind Sites
They have. See Access Now v. Southwest Airlines, and National Federation of the Blind v. Target.

The basic argument is that blind use specialized browsers that read web-pages aloud. When websites use images without alt-text however, or use flash or layout the website poorly, those browsers don't work. So the blind sued to compel the use of alt-text.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 29 Jun 2012 @ 12:42pm

Compliance rules of common sense
Other brilliant ADA compliance projects:
http://www.kunstler.com/eyesore_201111.html
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Darren (profile), 29 Jun 2012 @ 12:42pm

As a from-birth-hard-of-hearing person, I'm glad to see some action in forcing subtitles. I use lip reading in conjunction with sound to understand conversations. I don't watch TV/DVDs without captioning (and hate the delayed captioning on some shows). However, I don't think Netflix is the right company to sue, it should be the media companies in control of the distribution of the product that don't provide: closed captioning over the air (like AMC's first season of Walking Dead.), words to songs that are played (a very small minority do), or closed captioning on DVDs (in reality a small minority don't and usually older DVDs).
There ought be an exception in copyright law to allow companies, if not the producers of product then third parties, the opportunity comply with ADA instead a complicated mess of rights and revenue streams.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Gracey, 29 Jun 2012 @ 12:56pm

Re: Re: Re: Flash
This has been around for a while:

http://www.section508.gov/

A lot of webdesigners have already set their sites to comply with accessibility.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 29 Jun 2012 @ 1:13pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: this is kind of tough
Sounds like a movie studios wet dream if the ruling stands.

You want captioning? No we don't provide that.
What? You can't broadcast movies without it? Well I guess you'll just have to close down, then won't you.

Well, unless you'd like to by our new captioning license for your movies. It won't cost you much. Really, you can trust us.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
relghuar, 29 Jun 2012 @ 1:28pm

"screw you"...
Hell, I'm in a commenting mood tonight.
A couple discrimination arguments against deaf people come to mind, like "you're one of those hand-waving idiots", "look at him, he can't even hear us making fun of him",... I'd just like to add a new one ;-) "Screw you, you're one of those suckers screwing our websites!" .....
[ link to this | view in thread ]
That One Guy (profile), 29 Jun 2012 @ 2:14pm

Re: Re:
I think I'll have to get a tin-foil hat for myself, that actually doesn't seem too improbable.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 29 Jun 2012 @ 2:17pm

Hard even ignoring video
Section 508 compliance is difficult to ensure even when not dealing with video.I know because it is part of my job as an application developer for state agencies so I am intimately familar with the rules (some of which there is disagreement over whether they might actually make sites worse for modern accessibility tools but they are written in law so don't expect them to change to keep pace with tech). And guess what we do leave out functionality because we can't always implement it in a way that we can be sure is compliant. And all I have to worry about is a defect coming back during testing I can't imagine how much worse it will be when one defect that doesn't get caught can result in a lawsuit.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Beta (profile), 29 Jun 2012 @ 2:19pm

Re:
Or an exception to copyright that would let consumers make their own subtitles and share them. Fansubs are usually better than what the distributors come up with anyway.

An exception to the ADA to allow people to create and publish art without being sued would be nice too.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
TDR, 29 Jun 2012 @ 3:36pm

Re: Re:
Sorry, Travis. Didn't mean to offend anyone.

Anyway, I do think the ADA is harping on the wrong party here, as others have said. If anyone, they should go after the studios. The MAFIAA needs to lose as much money as possible as fast as possible.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Any Mouse (profile), 29 Jun 2012 @ 4:33pm

Re: Re:
Yes, my theater has this, and I love it. When I can use it, since it's in the top row seats where I can't get my wheelchair, but hey, we all make due in some way.

What it is, there are small screens that flip up at the seats and catch a secondary projection from behind that adds in the subtitling. Can't recall for the life of me what they're calling it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
A Guy (profile), 29 Jun 2012 @ 4:38pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Really tough one
"1) That is not "some redesign", that is a radical change of business model that would be legally impossible without the cooperation of third parties, and in any case could easily change a viable, innovative business into a non-starter. Calling that "some redesign" is like calling aggressive chemotherapy "an adjustment of diet"."

Would it be impossible? I haven't seen their contracts but if netflix doesn't include a clause that gives them latitude to comply with all applicable laws, they should really have a talk with the lawyers that told them the contracts were okay to sign in the first place. :/

"2) Ah, you want a free, open-source speech-to-text library for Java. Built and maintained by Somebody Else."

I wouldn't mind helping maintain it. However, I don't currently have any use for it from a business or user standpoint, so it probably would be someone else.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Any Mouse (profile), 29 Jun 2012 @ 4:41pm

Re: Re: I hate this too
Gifs. Lots and lots and LOTS of animated gifs...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
btr1701 (profile), 29 Jun 2012 @ 7:10pm

Re: Hypocrisy!
> So one-eyed Pirate Mike has no compassion for the blind?

Gotta love it when the trolls' own stupidity speaks for itself.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Togashi (profile), 29 Jun 2012 @ 7:34pm

Re: Re: I hate this too
Nothing a couple pounds of Javascript can't fix!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
A Guy (profile), 29 Jun 2012 @ 7:46pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Really tough one
"4) Data Mining and ADA Regulations have nothing to do with each other. ADA doesn't mine data, ADA doesn't have logs of visits, that would be the webhost / domain register, and really is a completely separate topic."

The ADA protects those with disabilities/medical conditions from discrimination in hiring, and other places. If certain data can't be sold to certain people, it may go a long way toward compliance. If you think these are separate topics, you don't understand how data mining is done.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
A Guy (profile), 29 Jun 2012 @ 7:49pm

Re: Hypocrisy!
Awww

People missed the parody element. Personally, I thought it was hilarious.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
ebilrawkscientist (profile), 29 Jun 2012 @ 8:51pm

Java WTF?
Must bring this up but what does java have to do with netflix; I thought netflix runs on silverlight,(or it did right up to relatively recently).
[ link to this | view in thread ]
A Guy (profile), 29 Jun 2012 @ 9:44pm

Re: Java WTF?
It doesn't have to be java. That would probably be how I would start the project if I were in charge, which I'm not. If someone else wants to tackle it from another angle, more power to them.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Cowherd, 30 Jun 2012 @ 8:27am

A website can't be a "place of public accommodation" because a website is not a place.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
JEDIDIAH, 30 Jun 2012 @ 8:44am

The rule of law
You whine but the alternatives are far worse. Things like duels, fueds, and drive by shootings.

You can disagree with the ADA in general on principle, but whining about an organized means to settle disputes is just stupid.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Flix (profile), 30 Jun 2012 @ 9:02am

Re: Re:
Are you referring to reverse discrimination?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Jason, 30 Jun 2012 @ 7:37pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: this is kind of tough
You want captioning? No we don't provide that.
What? You can't broadcast movies without it? Well I guess you'll just have to close down, then won't you.

Well, unless you'd like to by our new captioning license for your movies. It won't cost you much. Really, you can trust us.

The studios would never license captions. Their only mission is to destroy distributor competition. Your first scenario is correct.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
WysiWyg (profile), 1 Jul 2012 @ 4:37am

Re: Re: Re:
Wow. That's a LOT of trouble to go through, just so the general audience don't have to risk reading something. Yikes.

Now I generally hate the Swedish subtitles that they show on movies in Sweden, since they seem to hire drunk 12-yearsolds to operate Google Translate instead of actual translators for the subtitles, but in general they are also fairly easy to just ignore. Well, unless you have the bad luck of ending up watching a 3D-movie. For some reason they have decided to place the subtitles seemingly about one foot in front of you. Hello headache!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Seegras (profile), 2 Jul 2012 @ 2:39am

obviously copyright is broken
If there are no exceptions defined in copyright-law which make closed-captioning (and, for the blind, screenreaders) legally possible, then obviously the copyright-law is broken, and the ADA should start to fight there. Make DRM illegal, for instance.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Jul 2012 @ 9:46am

Re: The rule of law
Because hiring some kind of legal mercenary to wage war on your enemies is so civilized.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Chargone (profile), 2 Jul 2012 @ 10:21am

Re:
Ah, Ninja... we have dismissed that claim.

(odds of me having got the meme wrong? high.)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
the other Jason, 3 Aug 2012 @ 10:23am

Re: Re: this is kind of tough
See how a hypothetical conversation is, on its face, a strawman argument.

If NetFlix can document that this kind of conversation happened, then they've at least taken a step to mitigate their liability. If not, then yeah, they share the responsibility.

A lot of ADA law swings on what a reasonable accommodation is and on what an undue burden is. That's also why a lot of what Professor Goldman Says is HIGHLY reactionary - not bad, and definitely sparks some worthwhile discussion, but very reactionary.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Jason, 3 Aug 2012 @ 10:26am

Re: Re: The rule of law
On par with caring for the sick and burying the dead.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Jason, 3 Aug 2012 @ 10:30am

Re: Re:
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=is+closed+captioning+required+for+movie+theaters

Perhaps the above link will explain why Google would never even get so far as suggesting that kind of law suit.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Jason, 3 Aug 2012 @ 10:36am

Re: Re: Re: this is kind of tough
The tricky thing here for Netflix is that the studio DOES provide captions, just not to Netflix.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Jason, 3 Aug 2012 @ 10:37am

Re: Re:
I thiink something like this would be even cooler than the flip-ups. Curious as to your take, Travis:
http://www.digitaltrends.com/lifestyle/sony-subtitle-glasses/
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Jason, 3 Aug 2012 @ 10:39am

Re: Re: Hypocrisy!
They should also be required to provide services for the sarcasm-impared.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Jason, 3 Aug 2012 @ 10:45am

Re: Re: Re: Hypocrisy!
Yeah, but no able-bodied person of any color ever had to flop out of their car and crawl on the ground just to get up to a segregated water-fountain and stare at it wishing they could drink from it.

Race-segregation: bad. Reasonable ADA accommodation: good.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
the other Jason, 3 Aug 2012 @ 10:47am

Re: Re: Hypocrisy!
Again, I would propose an ADA approved sarcasm filter.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Jason, 3 Aug 2012 @ 10:51am

Re: I hate this too
"With that said, I am adamantly against legislation like this."

Er, what legislation? Are you saying you're against the Americans with Disabilities Act?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Jason, 3 Aug 2012 @ 10:53am

Re:
Ah Yes, your baseless insinuation that the judge must have been drunk has suddenly clarified the myriad complexities of this issue. I now am content to think as little as you do.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Jason, 3 Aug 2012 @ 10:58am

Re: Re: Really tough one
The ADA was here a solid decade before Netflix.

You don't blame a pedestrian rightfully in the crosswalk for wrecking a car without brakes.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Ron, 24 Mar 2016 @ 1:41pm

ADA
I for one have always had compassion and empathy for the disabled, but lately the ADA compliance issue has gotten absurd.

In fact I envision Bitter resentful individuals that feel if they can't see it neither can we and the world should not enjoy anything they can not.

To the disabled, I have a news flash for you. Just because you can't hear, see, are colorblind whatever, is not justification for destroying or censoring artistic expression in the world.

YOU'RE DISABLED, I agree that sucks, but get over it and compromise with us. I would be more than happy to add a link to every website I build offering a black and white (or whatever color s you choose, text only, easily navigable website version, in order to accommodate you.
But if you think you are going to impose your suffering on me??? You have another thing coming!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Ron, 24 Mar 2016 @ 5:05pm

Re: ADA
In fact, maybe all of us, including the disabled should be suing NVDA, JAWS and the makers of screen readers for not upgrading their code to compensate for MODERN web tecniques
[ link to this | view in thread ]