ADA May Force Netflix To Provide Closed Captioning On Content 694
Shivetya writes "Last year Netflix was sued by the National Association for the Deaf for failing to provide closed captioned text through its on-demand streaming service. Now, a judge has denied Netflix's attempt to have the suit thrown out, saying that the Americans with Disabilities Act prohibits discrimination in any venue — not just physical structures. The easiest means to comply would be to remove all videos which do not have a closed captioning component, the other route would require Netflix to pay to have this done to any video it wants to provide. The implications to other providers is immense as well. The plaintiffs will still need to prove that Netflix is legally obligated to provide closed-captioning, but the ruling is still significant for recognizing that Internet sites may fall under the purview of the Americans with Disabilities Act."
Mixed feelings (Score:5, Insightful)
On one hand this sucks. The amount of revenue you bring in by making your content accessible is not going to pay the cost of doing so. Same can be said with making websites accessible to the blind (and really probably most brick n’ mortar establishments.. especially if retrofit).
On the other hand that’s part of living in a civilized society. Most of us could easily by freak accident be in a position where we’d want these services... and doing non-profitable stuff like this just becomes another cost of business.
The implications on other content and especially user supplied content where no/very little revenue is being generated are of course the most scary. Where do you (or do you) draw the line between content that is “real” enough to require closed captioning (commercial productions, movies, etc..), and content that doesn’t (videos taken on cell phones, etc..).
The obvious answer would be monetization. If the video author isn’t getting money, the requirement goes away. But trying to turn that into a concrete policy becomes very mucky, as sites like youtube are profiting from it either directly from ad revenue, or indirectly through increased traffic/draw to their site.
Re:Mixed feelings (Score:5, Insightful)
I am all for "fair access" but if the CC was not made available by the content maker, than how is it netflixes fault for not having them? Shouldnt the judge be charging the movie maker for not providing CC to begin with??
Re:Mixed feelings (Score:5, Interesting)
Some channels actually have "descriptive audio" here. It's actually exactly what it sounds like. A voice describes what is happening, overlaid onto the audio. Once in a while I'll turn it on and try watching something with my eyes closed.. surprisingly for stuff that's heavily dialog driven, it works surprisingly well.
Re:Mixed feelings (Score:5, Insightful)
Some channels actually have "descriptive audio" here. It's actually exactly what it sounds like. A voice describes what is happening, overlaid onto the audio. Once in a while I'll turn it on and try watching something with my eyes closed.. surprisingly for stuff that's heavily dialog driven, it works surprisingly well.
Once upon a time, those were called radio shows.
Re:Mixed feelings (Score:3)
Once upon a time, those were called radio shows.
Not true.
Radio drama set the stage and carried the action through the use of dialog, music and sound effects.
Producers of a series might use a popular host to frame their stories, much as Hitchcock and Rod Serling did in television. But the intrusion of an omniscient narrator within a story carries the listener out of the story. That is why the best never used them: "Gunsmoke" is a particularly good example.
Re:Mixed feelings (Score:5, Funny)
From the DVS track for Basic Instinct
Correli unconsciously licks his lips.
She leans forward with an eager smile.
Nick Curran glances up from his notepad.
Correli eyes him curiously.
With a saucy gaze, Catherine uncrosses
her thighs.
She briefly exposes her pubic hair
then recrosses her legs.
Basic Instinct Poems [canopycanopycanopy.com]
Re:Mixed feelings (Score:3, Funny)
That would be hilarious. I would really like to hear some narrator attempting to describe Eraserhead.
Re:Mixed feelings (Score:3, Interesting)
I am blind in one eye from childhood. I can not see anything in 3D. If a movie theater shows a 3D move must they also provide the same movie in 2D?
Re:Mixed feelings (Score:5, Interesting)
(Not joking).
Re:Mixed feelings (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm half deaf and only watch videos on Netflix with closed captioning, but I'm on Netflix's side on this one. They provide no essential services, not even news or weather, and the only educational stuff tends to already have CC anyway. What's next, all porn is required to have CC?
Re:Mixed feelings (Score:3)
Especially descriptive voice for the blind.
Imagine sports casters, Elmer Fudd, or those really fast Spanish speaking guys narrating your favorite hardcore.
Re:Mixed feelings (Score:3)
They've already proposed that as well.
Re:Mixed feelings (Score:3)
I am all for "fair access" but if the CC was not made available by the content maker, than how is it netflixes fault for not having them?
May be, they did provide them, after all they're already providing them to Netflix on DVDs.
And the studios themselves certainly don't do the encoding for Netflix, Netflix does the encoding for itself (and my guess, Hulu does as well). The resulting streams coming from a studio's web site are vastly different from the streams coming from sites like Netflix, or Hulu.
Re:Mixed feelings (Score:5, Insightful)
Personally, I've run into far too many movies and shows on Netflix that lack subtitles (even though the broadcast and DVD version both have subs), I can hear fine but sometimes I miss a word with all the background noise, I usually turn subs on when they're available. I'd like to see more.
suing the louvre for not having a braile mona lisa (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Mixed feelings (Score:3)
They already have that. They all utilize the functionality in the browser that is required to interface with the websites.
When technology has come far enough to reliably generate text on the fly from spoken audio, this will be a non-issue. Until then, cooperation from vendors are required when possible to do without too much effort.
Re:Mixed feelings (Score:3)
Netflix relies itself on such governmental powers, like copyright. Why should they only have the benefits?
Re:Mixed feelings (Score:3)
Not true. I've seen closed captions on several Netflix shows. You need to look at newer shows to get it though, and you need to access it via the apps (I don't think it works via the web).
Re:Great for people with Kids (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Great for people with Kids (Score:4, Informative)
You got me. I'm a horrible parent by letting my 2, 6, and 8 year old laugh and enjoy movies at home.
Re:Mixed feelings (Score:4, Insightful)
"On one hand this sucks. The amount of revenue you bring in by making your content accessible is not going to pay the cost of doing so."
HUH? The Subtitles are on the DVD's they are ripping to create their content. It costs them nothing to send a fricking text stream.
Re:Mixed feelings (Score:5, Interesting)
Knowing the fucked up way media licensing works, they probably have to license the subtitle data seperately or something (see also: theme music).
Re:Mixed feelings (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Mixed feelings (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Mixed feelings (Score:5, Insightful)
At which point Netflix would then be obligated to refuse to provide those pieces of content until the creators provide the subtitles, at which point the creators would be forced to provide the subtitles. More to the point, these rules would apply to all similar services, presumably, so if the content providers don't solve the problem, they'll lose most of their digital distribution.
There is some flexibility allowed for providing content created prior to when the rules were adopted, so this doesn't require magically creating subtitles where none exist (unless they can't manage to strike a balance where at least 75% of their pre-rule content contains subtitles).
This doesn't suck at all. This is the law working exactly as it is supposed to work, doing exactly what it was intended to do. Now if we were talking about YouTube being forced to provide subtitles, that would be another matter....
Re:Mixed feelings (Score:3)
"On one hand this sucks. The amount of revenue you bring in by making your content accessible is not going to pay the cost of doing so."
HUH? The Subtitles are on the DVD's they are ripping to create their content. It costs them nothing to send a fricking text stream.
Netflix didn't always have the ability to stream the CC information. They do now, and most of the newer hardware players actually support it, which is why Netflix is adding the captions for new stuff. They issue is that they are demanding that Netflix go back and and reprocess all the existing videos for which they might not even have the data. That does cost them money, and the will not see any change in their subscription revenue for that effort.
It's akin to going to the library and bitching that not all of the books have braille.
Re:Mixed feelings (Score:3)
I doubt the very few programs left without some form of closed-captioning or subtitles amounts to all that much.
The value of having this material available to people with hearing disability is very large.
Netflix is a very inexpensive service for what you get. If they charge everyone 25 cents more per month, I doubt they would lose one customer, and it would probably pay for the cost of providing closed captions hundreds of times over.
I haven't noticed any "videos taken on cell phones" on Netflix.
I wish we didn't need an ADA, and if we could trust corporations to do the right thing, we might not. However, since by definition a corporation will poison babies if it means a nickel's bump in stock price, these things are necessary.
There is no "free market" mechanism for taking care of the disabled, or the poor, or the elderly, or those in need of medical care, and practically all of us will be one of those at one time or another in our lives (I guess there are a few people who are born rich, have perfect health right up until they have a piano dropped on them at age 35, but even they have parents). At least none that have ever worked very well or very long. That's why civilized societies do these things.
Re:Mixed feelings (Score:4, Insightful)
Except your free market allows monopolies which prevent the market from giving people what they want.
Is that serious, or a straw man? (Score:4, Funny)
Quite seriously, is that normal in the US that every program needs to have CC or are TV networks trying to push the competition out of business? Just asking...
Another question, does it say anything about the quality of the CC? I mean, how expensive could it be to have some Chinese or NKor people create yet another Backstroke of the West style CC?
Re:Is that serious, or a straw man? (Score:4, Insightful)
I can't figure out how the Congress has power to regulate private businesses and impose the ADA. Maybe it's through the corporate licensing.
Anyway:
Yes the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) ruled long-ago that broadcast TV must carry closed captioning. Then they extended it to cable TV (by what authority I have no idea). Including captioning on netflix really isn't a big deal..... it's encoded in the video steams of VHS tapes, DVDs, and Blurays so netflix just needs to dump that CC to the internet stream.
Re:Is that serious, or a straw man? (Score:3)
I can't figure out how the Congress has power to regulate private businesses and impose the ADA
The Constitution of the US, Article I, Section 8, Clause 3:[2] "[The Congress shall have Power] To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes;"
Re:Is that serious, or a straw man? (Score:2)
Read more carefully the clause you quoted. It says AMONG the states. Not inside a state. For example Congress has zero authority to force me to replace the stairs into my office with a ramp (only the Maryland legislature can do that).
Re:Is that serious, or a straw man? (Score:3)
It says AMONG the states. Not inside a state.
Netflix is headquartered in Maryland?
In all honesty, I don't know what criteria is used to determine whether a corporation's actions fall under the commerce clause. But going by the location of their headquarters vs the location of their customers at least seems to make more sense than Wickard v. Filburn [wikipedia.org].
Re:Is that serious, or a straw man? (Score:4, Informative)
Damn, I swear you are now my textbook example for http://xkcd.com/386/ [xkcd.com] .
Cable is regulated because it's not all a local coax - much of the system is distributed over satellite, etc, which the FCC regulates.
VHS uses line 21 VBI CC (ie just analog NTSC 480i and totally irrelevant), DVD uses bitmap images (a horrible format for streaming, and those are subtitles not closed captions anyway), and BD subtitles are way overcomplicated for streaming use. And that's all beside the point, since Netflix doesn't get their streaming from any of those, they get MPEG files from the content providers. Now they are going to have to go get CC/subtitle info from all of those providers in a big clusterfuck of content management.
Given companies like Netflix already have literally 100's of thousands of encoded and encrypted streams already on CDNs, they can't just "dump" anything to a stream. They will all be coming up with ways (some standard most somewhat proprietary) of taking CC from the content providers, sending it as separate requests (likely HTTP) and displaying it on devices. And given the FCC is basically requiring CEA-708 feature set compliance (along with the fact these services are on dozens or hundreds of devices with vastly different software), that's going to be a shit-ton of work.
Re:Is that serious, or a straw man? (Score:4, Informative)
I'm pretty sure you missed the entire point. The OP was asking what power congress has to CREATE the ADA, not what does the ADA do.
There's nowhere in the constitution that gives congress the power to regulate how private businesses operate. Some would say (not saying I do) that we should let economics figure this out. if there's money to be made, then companies will make it happen.
Anyways, I think that's what the real question was.
Re:Is that serious, or a straw man? (Score:5, Insightful)
that we should let economics figure this out.
The ADA exists (and here in Canada, the equivilant) because this won't happen. Making things accessible isn't a good business decision. It costs a lot of moeny and doesn't bring in much additional revenue. Society has decided that it's not fair to exclude the <whatever the correct term is now> from everything .. and so complying with accessibility rules just becomes a part of doing business.
Personally I think it goes too far. As usual we failed to find a reasonable medium. I'm all for society incurring some burden to help those who could easily by freak chance be us. At the same time however, we have to accept that it's impossible to make it so a <whatever the correct term is now> person can do everything in the same way that a non <whatever the correct term is now> can. If this was the case, then there'd be no problem. It sucks but it's life...
Re:Is that serious, or a straw man? (Score:3)
Its not a matter of thinking...
Its a matter of observation. Before the ADA, many doctor's offices weren't handicapped accessible, much less restaurants, etc.
Re:Is that serious, or a straw man? (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, because all those people who are going to the track to run shouldn't have to walk the extra 9 feet reserved for a handicap parking space. I mean, you are there to run, right? Why should you have to spend any more time walking to or from your car than necessary, just in case someone else needs that space. How dare grandma, in her wheel chair, show up to watch her grandkid run. Doesn't she know your legs will be tired and you need to park closer?
prick
Re:Is that serious, or a straw man? (Score:3)
The whole idea of handicapped people needing close parking is stupid. What you need for wheelchair access is wider spaces, not closer spaces. Once you're in the wheelchair, you can easily turn around what you said -- why do THEY need to be 9 feet closer? The person pushing the wheelchair isn't handicapped. I've pushed people in wheelchairs, it's no big deal to go a normal distance. After all, the parking lot is only part of the overall journey, you're still going to need to go up or down various ramps, across the field to where the track is, etc.
Most places implement handicapped parking by taking regular spots and putting a handicapped parking sign in front of them. It accomplishes nothing. The spots are the same width. It's all a feel-good crap measure that helps SOME people feel better about themselves and society, while giving it a bit of thought shows it accomplishes nothing of significance. Oooohh someone has to walk 30 feet less once in a while when they go to a busy store, that will totally change their lives! Not.
It would be far better to take 4 spots near the back or middle of the parking lot and combine them into 2 handicapped parking spots. It won't get in anybody's way and it would provide a valuable improvement to mobility handicapped people.
Re:Is that serious, or a straw man? (Score:4, Insightful)
Given that any corporation exists via state privilege, the ADA could simply be treated as one of the terms for corporate existence.
Re:Is that serious, or a straw man? (Score:5, Informative)
Here's a hint:
The law cites the 14th amendment (equal protection) and the commerce clause.
Re:Is that serious, or a straw man? (Score:3)
Re:Is that serious, or a straw man? (Score:2, Informative)
>>>Then obviously you didn't read the ADA, which covers it explicitly at the start.
Thanks. Now show me *in the constitution* where Congress was given authority to regulate private business. They certainly have the authority over commerce among the states, but PER THE 10th AMENDMENT do not have authority over businesses that exist wholly *inside* a state. Like a private store. Or a private office. Or a private school. Or a private farm. Or.....
Re:Is that serious, or a straw man? (Score:5, Insightful)
The constititution is not the whole of the law, and neither is it a sacred document. Over time there has been precendent and and affirmed that expand the power of congress. It is cearly affirmed by the courts over time that congress has to power to regulate private businesses in regards to worker safety, worker discrimination, and similar issues. What the framers intended is no longer relevant because times have changed and the laws did not freeze in 1790.
Re:Is that serious, or a straw man? (Score:3)
How in the name of Zeus are you going to operate Netflix without using an interstate telecommunication systems?
Re:Is that serious, or a straw man? (Score:3)
In general, as of January 1, 2006, all "new" English language programming, defined as analog programming first published or exhibited on or after January 1, 1998, and digital programming first aired on or after July 1, 2002, must be captioned by US broadcasters (with some exceptions.)
The FCC has issued Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on quality of Closed Captions, but as far as I know there are no formal FCC rules for quality yet, except for requiring broadcasters to provide contact information for reporting Closed Caption problems, and there is a web site to complain to the FCC as well.
Under the Twenty-First Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act of 2010, the FCC requires video programming owners to provide video programming distributors of IP-delivered content with captions of at least the same quality as the television captions provided for that programming.
Re:Is that serious, or a straw man? (Score:3)
This is complete non-news, really. The ADA isn't forcing anything directly - ie, yes, the ADA lawsuit is largely irrelevant, if Netflix wants to avoid this they need to sue the FCC. Though in general I have no idea why the ADA would bother with this silly lawsuit around the Americans With Disabilities Act when this is already covered by the 21st Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act [govtrack.us].
The FCC ruled months ago that Internet content would be required to support closed captions, they have a whole document with various requirements and deadlines based on the types of content and provider. And being in the industry, I can tell you content owners and distributors are already starting to work on it.
You can read the requirements yourself, but yeah, the point is *broadcast* (OTA, cable, or satellite) TV is required to have CC by the FCC, and now the FCC is using above Act to require any program that has been broadcast to have CC with Internet distribution. Technically they have no control over content that has never been broadcast (new release movies, Youtube, etc) but given it does include movies that have been broadcast on TV it's probably going to be available for all feature length content.
And as far as quality, they have said it must comply with CEA 708, which is an absurdly overcomplicated standard (probably designed by the subtitle/closed caption software insdustry). Luckily almost no one uses all of the ridiculous parts of it (but in theory you still have to be compliant if they do and someone files a complaint).
http://www.fcc.gov/document/closed-captioning-internet-protocol-delivered-video-programming-1 [fcc.gov]
The deaf are kind of militant these days (Score:3, Interesting)
Used to have a deaf roommate who was big into "deaf culture" (and was very annoying about it). We're talking Malcolm X militant about it. He wasn't alone either. There are a lot of people into deaf rights who think it should be illegal to air or play anything non-CC'ed. And they *will* sue.
Great for them, not so great for the rest of us who get cut off from all non-CC'ed content. And getting something CC'ed is pretty expensive--prohibitively so for a lot of indies.
Re:The deaf are kind of militant these days (Score:2)
>>>not so great for the rest of us who get cut off from all non-CC'ed content.
I've seen lots of non-Captioned content over broadcast TV (channels: thisTV, retroTV, antennaTV). The owner only has to broadcast CC if it's available, but if it's an old or obscure movie/show that doesn't have CC, they can still send it out for the enjoyment of hearing folk.
only 25% of the time my dear fellow (Score:3)
"As of January 1, 2008, 75 percent of “pre-rule” English language programming, defined as analog programming first shown before January 1, 1998, and digital programming first shown before July 1, 2002, must be captioned, with some exceptions."
citation:http://transition.fcc.gov/cgb/consumerfacts/closedcaption.pdf
Re: only 25% of the time my dear fellow (Score:3)
The requirement cuts off the "long tail", though; if this goes through, Netflix can no longer show the many films which haven't been captioned and only get a very few viewers.
Re:The deaf are kind of militant these days (Score:5, Insightful)
Deaf "Culture" will be gone in a generation.
The vast majority of children born deaf are receiving cochlear implants before the nerves degrade. This is rapidly degrading the number of deaf children. Over the long term I fully expect enrollment in deaf schools and existence of deaf culture to disappear with the only remaining deaf people being those that were afflicted by the condition later in life. Though even that is not certain, it takes several years of hearing loss before the nerves die and the body re-purposes resources so anyone that is caused to go deaf later in life will probably receive cochlear implants as well. As the technology of cochlear implants improves there will be more and more outlying cases where people are given implants.
Re:The deaf are kind of militant these days (Score:5, Informative)
And, believe or not, there's actually a movement against that. There are deaf people that want deaf children, and want them to remain deaf. I'm a type 1 diabetic, and I can't imagine forcing that on a child. It makes like a pain in the butt.
Re:The deaf are kind of militant these days (Score:5, Informative)
Oh yeah, my roomie regarded those implants as the enemy, and any deaf person who supported them as a traitor.
Re:The deaf are kind of militant these days (Score:3)
Re:The deaf are kind of militant these days (Score:5, Informative)
Unfortunately deaf pride or whatever you want to call it is a very prevent and prominent culture in many primarily deaf settings. The local school was protesting hearing teachers even with implants. They are pushing for laws to prevent implants to those unable to consent (effectively making it a mute point as you cant wait till 18 to decide the nerves do atrophy). It's pushed pretty heavily by some deaf teachers to impressionable young children under there care. I guess it's not different that other teachers choosing indoctrination of other political agendas as part of there teaching.
Re:The deaf are kind of militant these days (Score:3)
Yes, I've read about them.
Personally I think it's child abuse to deny a baby born deaf a cochlear implant for a stupid reason like "deaf culture" (if there is a legitimate medical reason thats a valid reason). If for no other reason (and there are a LOT of other reasons) loss of hearing is a serious safety issue.
Re:The deaf are kind of militant these days (Score:5, Insightful)
No, what is child abuse is using the misfortune of someone's child being born with a hearing impairment to excuse human experimentation on infants with dubious real world results.
I'm not a Deaf militant, but I am hard of hearing since childhood and have participated in the Deaf community and use sign language, so I know a little bit about this stuff because it involves me and those like me. I find the saddest thing has always been the way the families involved and the children diagnosed with it are treated. The second saddest thing is how many people who spout off about the issue do so from a position of ignorance and emotion, not facts.
The fact is that cochlear implants are a dangerous gamble, one that rarely pays off as much as those who subject others to it expect. It requires drilling into the skull to place a piece of hardware in the head, one that still requires the use of an external aid to function. There are heightened risks of meningitis, nerve damage, necrosis of the cochlear implant skin flaps...none of which are really explained to parents before hand. Instead all parents of Deaf children hear is that there is a surgery that can "fix" their children.
Worse, the recommendation is that the surgery be done at an early age because there is a limited window to get some form of language to the brain. The problem is that proponents of the surgery often advise against the children also learning sign language because it would interfere with them learning to process sounds. This is where the biggest gamble of all takes place--if the child doesn't properly learn to process the signals as sounds, they are effectively retarded in their development.
By contrast sign language has shown to allow communication and build cognitive function at preverbal ages!
That is why so many Deaf people get so militant about the issue!
Re:The deaf are kind of militant these days (Score:3)
Re:The deaf are kind of militant these days (Score:3)
My girlfriend is on the road to becoming completely deaf and we have a hard time attending movie theaters, due to her not being able to hear most of the audio in movies. Usually, we just sit away from everyone(or do our best to) and I will put my mouth very close to her better ear and relay the important parts she misses. It is difficult, but we would never dream of forcing movie theaters to provided closed captioning on all movies. Of course, there has been a recent change that has made movies more enjoyable for her.
Many of the theaters around us(metro Atlanta Area) have started to show movies with closed captioning. Usually, the more popular movies will have a special running, on certain days, which will run closed captioning. It is a nice feature and I hope to see more showings in the future.
It would be nice to see a technology that uses glasses to display closed captioning to the view, while they are watching the screen, but not force everyone to view the closed captioning. Of course, closed caption doesn't bother me; it has never bothered me. Still, there are a number of people that get irritated at closed captioning, which forces theaters to forgo offering more closed captioning.
Regardless, closed captioning is not expensive. It is actually extremely cheap these days. Perhaps closed captioning was expensive 10 to 20 years ago, but closed captioning is available cheap, and in many cases, free. Perhaps the formating of movies played in theaters would drive up the costs some, but I doubt that the filmmakers couldn't find cheaper solutions to provide closed captioning, if they wish to do so.
Due to my girlfriend's schedule, we miss a lot of the TV shows that we would like to watch(though, there are not many anymore). We do not have a DVR, so I have to download the episodes we want to watch. It was during the first few times that I started downloading TV shows that I found sites that offer free closed captioning.
The closed captioning is usually provided through .srt files, though there are other formats available. There are add-on programs that are required to make the .srt(or other format) files work with Windows Media Player. There is even a media player(http://www.bsplayer.com/) that will automatically download the closed caption from sites like podnapisi(http://www.podnapisi.net/en), subtitleseeker(www.subtitleseeker.com), and others.
There are times that I might have to download a few .srt files to find subtitles that are synchronized with the media playing. Considering that it is free and that there are people doing this for other, without charge, it is well worth the effort. Of course, Hulu offers closed captioning, but we do not have access to proper broadband to afford streaming Hulu.
I could have sworn that Netflix offered closed captioning, at least on some movies/shows. I remember seeing a Netflix app update that stated that closed captioning was now available, but that was 6 months to 1 year ago, at the very least.
It seems that Apple is avoiding the ADA's angst. All of the movies I have purchased from iTunes do not offer closed captioning. I remembering seeing something in an update that stated Apple would start providing closed captioning, but it has not materialized for any of the content I have already purchased. It would be nice to download the content again with closed captioning included.
I do not believe companies should be forced to offer closed captioning, just like I will not be forced to pay for content my girlfriend and I cannot watch. It is ridiculous that movies and TV shows on DVD/Blu-ray provide closed captioning, but the digital copies do not. If one format offers closed captioning, all of the formats should offer it. Regardless, this is not something that should be forced on companies.
Youtube? (Score:5, Insightful)
Would this include YouTube?
Re:Youtube? (Score:3)
Don't forget the blind! (Score:3, Funny)
Netflix will need to mail a Braille transcript.
Serious question: (Score:3, Interesting)
By this same token, a duochrome-colorblind person can petition for color-adjusted films. A blind person can request a specific voice feed that describes the actions of the characters in a film, and so forth. Why not just let some other service create closed captions for deaf viewers to subscribe to?
Re:Serious question: (Score:2)
Why can a private service which requires people to pay before viewing content be forced to accommodate people who may not be their target market?
The same reason Congress can enact nearly any law--interstate commerce.
Re:Serious question: (Score:2)
What if Netflix doesn't consider the deaf to be its target audience and specifically indicates this fact?
The legislation makes it clear that businesses aren't given a choice. There are multiple laws that prohibit discrimination in general.
Re:Serious question: (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Serious question: (Score:3)
Becasue we as a society have determined that private enterprise can only exist at our discretion.
"Land of the free" and the right to "pursue happiness", *snort*.
Where does either of these terms include being able to set up fictitious legal entities that have the same rights as people? People are totally welcome to start up businesses and take on the full liabilities for doing so. However, if you want to setup a corporation so that you can sell shares and sheild owners of the company from being sued for actions taken by the company or it's officiers than you're going to accept restrictions and requirements for being able to do this.
Re:Serious question: (Score:5, Interesting)
Because just like broadcast television, they are sufficiently large enough to cover the costs associated with captioning the content. Netflix does have some content that is captioned on their streaming service, but frankly it's mostly a joke.
I am not sure what their process involves in acquiring the visual content that they stream. Netflix seem to have no difficulty in acquiring the audio tracks to stream along with the visual content. If Netflix is getting the content from the DVD's or whatever, it should be trivial enough to rip the subtitle / closed captioning tracks already present, sync it up and stream it as well. The physical DVD is captioned, yet the stream isn't. Netflix, along with a number of other content providers are basically saying, "Meh it's not worth our time to deal with it, so tough luck." Technically it should be trivial enough to do this but they are not. That's when the government usually has to step in. It's not so much a matter of preserving their profit, but doing the right thing and providing accessibility. Otherwise it's essentially tyranny of the majority.
The main reason why this lawsuit is necessary is because many online streaming services are essentially doing nothing or a very poor job of providing captioned content. Hulu for example, has a limited selection of captioned content within their catalog. This would not be so bad if they were more conscientious about monitoring their content. Sometimes they do not caption a given episode out of a captioned series. Apparently they have to "receive" it from the content provider. They do not check to ensure that the file has been received each time and that it plays properly. I've had missing captioning, captioning that was out of sync, content that indicated it was captioned, but no captioning, content that does not indicate captioning, but had captioning. If this had been happening with a broadcast television station, they would have been hit with a bunch of fines. That's why broadcast stations have someone monitoring it to ensure quality and delivery of captioned content.
Back to the point, streaming services are becoming more widespread, their catalog is expanding. They need to develop a scheme that simplifies handling and streaming of content such that captioning is automatically included and present from the content provider. That would ease the burden on Netflix, Hulu, and others. Netflix is the ideal target because they have one of the largest catalog of streaming content, and most of them were already captioned previously. In doing so, Netflix would have to sit down with the content providers and figure out a solution.
Clearly not all content would feasibly be captioned. No reasonable court would enforce captioning on "private" or indie content unless aired over broadcast/cable. The burden on captioning needs to be shifted to the content creators. There are already standards that determines what content must be captioned and anything below that is at their discretion. It won't be easy I admit, but this needs to happen, and the sooner, the better.
Re:Serious question: (Score:3)
The movie theaters tried to make the same argument and were slapped down by the 9th Circuit. The judges essentially told them: "So, does this mean that a courthouse does not have to provide a wheelchair accessible ramp, because it is targeted only at people without a mobility impairment?" The largest three movie theater chains eventually settled because of this. WIth digital projection systems, the cost to equip a theater with closed-caption equipment is less than $2500.
Re:Serious question: (Score:4, Interesting)
So, in a way, every taxpayer is a customer because every tax payer has helped build the infrastructure that allows a large corporation to exist. Hell, every one in the US pays a tax on their phone so rural people can have cheap communication. Tell me Netflix could be this big without such a tax.
what does this mean for all websites? (Score:4, Funny)
Re:what does this mean for all websites? (Score:3)
Should be easy to do (Score:2)
Most of the videos on Netflix are movies or TV shows. Every movie I've seen since DVDs came out have subtitling on them, it should just be a matter of including that information in the streamed video (assuming Flash allows for displaying subtitles). Most TV shows are close-captioned already, again it should be just a matter of including the close-captioning information in the stream. There should only be a minority of content that isn't already ADA-compliant.
Re:Should be easy to do (Score:2)
Most of the content I've watched already has CC... to be honest this sounds more like you'll see some content pulled until the content providers supply CC.
This is a wash for the deaf, they get no new content.
The hearing lose.
I'm all for them making some kind of "from now on" decision, but to kill off the back catalogue is nothing short of petty and vindictive.
Re:Should be easy to do (Score:2)
Are you a project manager by chance?
If it seems easy, it never is.
but that ain't all of it (Score:3)
closed captioning didn't become "all tv's" and all programming until 1990
Cite:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Closed_captioning#Legislative_development_in_the_U.S. [wikipedia.org]
Netflix has 3035 videos from 1914 to 1989
and 10,937 from 1990 to 2012
pre 1998 videos total 4,440
cite:instantwatchdb.com
"As of January 1, 2008, 75 percent of “pre-rule” English language programming, defined as analog programming first shown before January 1, 1998, and digital programming first shown before July 1, 2002, must be captioned, with some exceptions."
citation:http://transition.fcc.gov/cgb/consumerfacts/closedcaption.pdf
which means they have to provide CC on 75% of 4440 videos, or drop them...
Wiki-ize, if the MPAA would allow it (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Wiki-ize, if the MPAA would allow it (Score:3)
Wiki, really? I doubt Netflix wants a blind person to stream Star Trek II and all of a sudden see "KHAAAAAAAAAAAAApenispenispenis" as well. ;)
I think if I were blind I'd appreciate being able to see again, no matter what the first thing I saw was!
Yee haw! (Score:2)
As a deaf American, I am happy this is happening. It makes Netflix useful, and I'd like to see it expand to all online video. What excuse do CNN or Fox news online have NOT to captioning the video on their websites? Not a single one.
As an American businessman, I can understand what a collosal pain in the ass it is for business... but it's not the fault of ME or any other deaf person that Netflix chose to ignore us.
Would you use Netflix if all the movies and shows had no sound? Course not. There's no excuse not to have closed captioning, not from a technical stand point at least. Almost all original video has captioning enclosed nowadays. ALL broadcasts in the US are required to have closed captioning. Claiming they don't have access to the captioning is horse feces.
The bigger issue is the LICENSING costs, I believe. Captioning is often treated as a separate performance from the primary material. This, I believe, its also horse feces. Is the sound a separate performance from the video? No, it goes together to produce the performance.
I'd also like to see it expanded to the movie theaters, where a deaf person is often treated like a fool for asking if a movie has captioning... and having to seek out 2nd or 3rd run options, when there is plentiful technology to present this without issues (Rear Window, specifically) with other movie goers.
Again, I understand this costs money, but... if you did it in the first place, it wouldn't be an issue, would it? Or should be all be watching silent movies still?
Re:Yee haw! (Score:2)
This, I believe, its also horse feces. Is the sound a separate performance from the video?
Yes!
This is a huge problem for people trying to release old TV shows on DVD. They have to re-license the sound tracks. In a lot of cases, the cost either prevents them from releasing the DVD, or forces them to (at less cost) replace the audio with soundalike music (see: Married with Children).
508 (Score:2)
I'm perplexed (Score:3)
If NetFlix is required, then are theaters? What about YouTube? More importantly what about online porn?
I'm so confused...
That would violate the movies' copyrights. (Score:5, Insightful)
Simple as that.
Now, whether or not Netflix still has to comply... Well, perhaps we can twist this to our own gain - Does the obligation to make their content "accessible" trump copyright? If so, you can bet your left nut I'll have a business model the very next day designed to exploit that fact.
Your turn, courts - Punish us all to protect the weak, or give up your paternalistic attitude toward Big Media.
Re:That would violate the movies' copyrights. (Score:3)
Netflix cannot comply with the ADA in this case, because doing so would create a derivative work of the original, without the permission of the copyright holder.
Closed Captioning in the states was launched in 1980 with a set-top box distributed through the Sears, Roebuck catalog. The integrated decoder for analog receivers became mandatory on all sets sold or manufactured after July 1, 1993,
Closed Captioning is 32 years old, people, and a striking example of how technology can enlarge and enrich the life of the disabled. Thirty years ago my father needed this tech, thirty years on, we both need this tech. It is only the geek that never ages.
In our reply comments, PK explained why captioning a video is a ''fair use'' that does not qualify as copyright infringement under section 107 of the Copyright Act. Section 107 lists four factors that go into a fair use analysis, three of which favor captioning as a fair use. The nature of the copyrighted work (here, video programming) is probably highly creative, and so it enjoys a fair amount of copyright protection. However, captioning is a non-commercial use that is simply intended to make the programming accessible to individuals with disabilities, and to legally comply with the CVAA. Captioning uses as little of the copyrighted work as possible because it only conveys exactly what a person with a hearing disability would need to understand the video: the words being spoken. Finally, captioning actually has a positive effect upon the market value of the work for the copyright owner. When more people can access the programming, the audience for the video programming will grow. This is a perfect example of how the fair use doctrine serves the overall goal of copyright law: promoting the progress of art and knowledge.
Even if captioning infringed copyright, the CVAA explicitly orders the FCC to âoerevise its regulations to require the provision of closed captioning on video programming delivered using Internet protocol....â If captioning does indeed violate copyright, then the FCC has statutory authority to create a limited exception to copyright protection for the purposes of implementing the CVAA. Copyright law is not a shield against all other legal obligations. The FCC has even reached this conclusion before, when it required cable companies to make copyright-protected programming available to competitors under the program access rules.
Copyright Does Not Trump Disability Rights Law [publicknowledge.org]
The most striking and bizarre aspect of the thing is to see the geek stand in lock-step with the corporate giants who have framed this debate in terms of SOPA.
Re:That would violate the movies' copyrights. (Score:3)
There is a blanket exception to copyright to make things accessible. I does not so much trump copyright as the exception is written into the law. People make audio books for the blind daily. They do need to be part of on an authorized entity to do the conversion but that's not a very high barrier.
Doesn't seem to apply (Score:3, Informative)
I used to be involved with ADA, and I believe the lawsuit will eventually fail. There are two components to ADA that they might go after, Telecommunications or Public Accommodation. However, The language of the law is pretty specific, and there's no way Netflix will fall under either of these categories. As many have already pointed out, Netflix losing would be a catastrophically slippery slope, and no court would initiate that without clear intent from Congress. Just because a case isn't summarily dismissed doesn't mean it will win, it simply means the judge believes it's worth hearing.
This is just a premliminary ruling. (Score:5, Informative)
This is just a preliminary ruling. Netflix tried to have the suit dismissed, that didn't work, and now it gets tried on the merits.
At some point, the ADA runs into the First Amendment, which prohibits "forced speech". (Broadcast TV is a special case, because it involves publicly owned RF spectrum.) Book publishers aren't required to produce audio or Braille editions, or translations to another language.
It's only a matter of time. (Score:3)
>but the ruling is still significant for recognizing that Internet sites may fall under the purview of the Americans with Disabilities Act."
Web designers have ignored the sight impaired for far too long and had it far too easy. They have ignored standards, done stupid shit as use pictures for blocks of text, flash-only (like the IOC did once) and engaged in "get the hell out, you peon with a screen-reader" nonsense ever since the term "rich content" slipped out of someone's lips 15+ years ago.
Every web designer should spend a week using the Internet blindfolded, using only JAWS.
"But who cares about the blind?"
There but for the grace of the Universe go you.
--
BMO
double the killer delete select all (Score:3)
Just pass everything through voice recognition (even shitty M$ one) and all of a sudden you comply. This is how YT is doing it.
Authors? (Score:3)
So if this atrocity somehow survives through SCOTUS will this mean authors who self publish are now required to provide braille copies or else be sued too? Will I have to spend thousands of dollars to sell one or two copies of my book to a blind person? Are you fucking kidding me? ADA has morphed from 'we should try where we can to do what is reasonably possible to help the handicapped' to 'gimme gimme gimme or else!'
Disgusting.
Re:The ADA pushes too hard (Score:2)
Re:The ADA pushes too hard (Score:3)
Because then every business would argue that it can't install ramps. And usually the argument would boil down to it being possible, it'd just cost money and the business doesn't want to spend money.
Society, OTOH, has decided that it's not in it's best interests for a significant number of it's members to not be able to do the basic things everyone else can, like get into a store and shop for goods or go to the theater and watch a movie. Just like it decided it wasn't in it's best interests for a significant number of it's members to be relegated to the back of the bus and to second-rate schools just because of the color of their skin. Businesses don't like it now, just like they didn't like it then, but society doesn't make it's decisions based on what's best for businesses (just like businesses don't make their decisions based on what's best for society, apparently). I've a little sympathy for them, but since in large part they've demonstrated that nothing short of application of a blunt instrument will get them to behave my general attitude's become "If they don't like the terms society wants, they're free to pack their businesses up and go elsewhere.".
Re:The ADA pushes too hard (Score:5, Insightful)
Probably because they wouldn't do it at all.
Like everything else, we can't seem to find a happy medium. Making something (anything) accessible is almost always a financial loss. You spend thousands of dollars adding ramps, special bathrooms, etc and might gain 4 new customers.. you add CC to a video and again, you probably won't draw enough extra traffic to pay the cost of doing so.
We have decided as a society that simply having no accessibility is unacceptable. So we have to bite the bullet and call it a cost of business. Unfortunately as usual, we went to far.. and now as you said, we end up putting unreasonable burdens on people for very little benifit.
Re:The ADA pushes too hard (Score:3)
I keep hearing this argument over and over, but ramps and 'special' bathrooms make life easier for a lot of other customers. Kids for one things. Those special bathrooms give you plenty of room to change diapers. Ramps come in handy for parents with strollers. Not to mention that someone in a wheelchair probably has friends and family that would like to come with them.
It really is an absurd argument. If you only gain 4 customers than you probably didn't have many customers to begin with.
Re:The ADA pushes too hard (Score:3)
I've never seen anyone substantiate this claim except in the case of a multi-story building designed without elevators where a remodel requires one to be installed. Those are a vanishingly small number of cases these days since all multi-story facilities come with elevators now (and the price of simple hydraulic elevators has dropped).
No one is making you retrofit anything if you are just using an existing building as-is. You only have to comply with the ADA if you are remodeling and then you can bypass restrictions if the facility is physically unable to accommodate or if it would be a financial hardship. How much does it really cost to combine two toilet stalls into one wheelchair accessible stall? A bag of quick-crete, a compass & string, and a couple hours of your time and you can pour your own wheelchair ramp for less than a hundred bucks and be 100% compliant with the latest code.
The vast majority of complaining about ADA compliance is just penny-pinchers or people who don't like doing extra design work, even if it doesn't add much to the cost or timeline... Same reason railroads didn't adopt the safer air brakes or coupling knuckles even though both saved them money (and many brake and car men their fingers/lives!) in the long run and resulted in far fewer derailments. Congress literally had to force them to adopt technologies that saved lives, paid for themselves, and ultimately saved a lot of money.
ADA won't save money so please, do tell, how exactly a combat vet with his legs blown off has any chance of enjoying a semi-normal life without things like the ADA? Don't those businesses owe him something, for protecting the society that allows them to even have a business in the first place? Or did the safety and security of the United States spring wholly from their own bootstraps in some sort of Randian fantasy land?
Re:The ADA pushes too hard (Score:2)
Do you give them a reward for providing sound so people who can hear have no issues watching the movie? You know, they give out refunds if the movie plays without sound... Do I ever get a refund if the RW or Open Captioning advertised doesn't play? No.
Re:These movies are produced by somebody... (Score:2)
More silliness caused by a right to free speech. I can create a film or other work, without complying with ADA.
Re:The ADA sucks (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Awesome! (Score:3)
Larry Goldberg from NCAM says that it typically costs $400-$800 to caption a movie from scratch. If you add to that the fact that most Hollywood movies are already captioned by their content owners, it becomes the proverbial drop in the bucket.