NAD Files Disability Civil Rights Lawsuit against Netflix

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
The National Association of the Deaf have filed a lawsuit against Netflix for not offering subtitles with its streaming content. Hit the link to read the NAD press release and watch the video. (I'm not sure if the video doesn't have subtitles on purpose, but I apologize in advance if it says something gross or inappropriate.:p) Thanks to Jon855 for the link.

The National Association of the Deaf (NAD), the nation’s premier civil rights organization of deaf and hard of hearing individuals, announced the filing of a major federal lawsuit against Netflix today in U.S. District Court, District of Massachusetts, Western Division in Springfield, MA. The lawsuit charges the entertainment giant with violating the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) by failing to provide closed captioning for most of its “Watch Instantly” movies and television streamed on the Internet.
 
While I don't hide the fact that my Wife is deaf (I'm not), and I am quite pissed that Netflix and other online streaming services are fairly lackluster in their adoption of captions/subtitles in their streaming video services - even when such capabilities are easy to implement given today's technology - I don't think taking them to court in yet another stupid fucking lawsuit is the solution.

Unfortunately, because of our rather asinine legal system, there are some non-technical reasons for the slow adoption of adding captions/subtitle content to those streams (a lot of the time the actual captions and subtitles are under a completely different licensing scheme than the video portion itself).

I know Netflix is doing something with the captions/subtitles, and I know they'd do more if not for the licensing aspects with those captions/subtitles, but another lawsuit? Come on... that's just going to make it worse. :(
 
They need to hire people like the Google Search suggestion dude to type the captions as the movie plays.
 
Solution:
1. Stop all video streaming until they can provide captions in all possible languages. (so they can avoid lawsuits from every small minority group out there).

2. Provide the name & adress of everyone behind this lawsuit.

3. Wait until the lawyers involved beg them to restart the video streaming service.


Guess I'll go file a lawsuit against GM for not making a car blind people can drive.
 
Solution:
1. Stop all video streaming until they can provide captions in all possible languages. (so they can avoid lawsuits from every small minority group out there).

2. Provide the name & adress of everyone behind this lawsuit.

3. Wait until the lawyers involved beg them to restart the video streaming service.


Guess I'll go file a lawsuit against GM for not making a car blind people can drive.

Always one in the crowd.
 
The National Association of the Deaf have filed a lawsuit against Netflix for not offering subtitles with its streaming content. Hit the link to read the NAD press release and watch the video. (I'm not sure if the video doesn't have subtitles on purpose, but I apologize in advance if it says something gross or inappropriate.:p) Thanks to Jon855 for the link.

The youtube video has subtitles, you just need to enable it. :)

While I don't hide the fact that my Wife is deaf (I'm not), and I am quite pissed that Netflix and other online streaming services are fairly lackluster in their adoption of captions/subtitles in their streaming video services - even when such capabilities are easy to implement given today's technology - I don't think taking them to court in yet another stupid fucking lawsuit is the solution.

Unfortunately, because of our rather asinine legal system, there are some non-technical reasons for the slow adoption of adding captions/subtitle content to those streams (a lot of the time the actual captions and subtitles are under a completely different licensing scheme than the video portion itself).

I know Netflix is doing something with the captions/subtitles, and I know they'd do more if not for the licensing aspects with those captions/subtitles, but another lawsuit? Come on... that's just going to make it worse. :(

I'm on spot with you right there however here's some arguments - take it for what it is.

DVDs with subs or not are presented as is without modifications. Whereas the majority of movies which are streamed doesn't have subtitles whereas on the DVD counterpart does have them, that's where the issue comes in.

I don't agree with suing, it's just not my personal approach but this may be what gets them going.

Steve - On another note, CNN has been sued by a different groups, for not providing captions on their streaming videos / contents. http://www.gladinc.org/information-...g-for-lack-of-captioned-videos-on-its-website

I'm deaf, and it frustrates me when my gf whom can hear wants to watch a movie with me but she doesn't want to anymore because that one particular movie happens to not be subtitled and we've to settle for something asinine. Netflix on PS3 doesn't allow for sorting by captions - this would've saved me time looking for movies. Netflix on the computer's much easier to navigate and sort - even though there's no sorting by captions but it's much quicker.

I hope that this suit will bring upon a quicker adoption of the subtitling on streamed media even though I don't agree with the approaches that NAD are taking.
 
I'm not trying to be insensitive, but why is it worth a lawsuit just because people who are deaf can't watch Dr. Who (for example) on Netflix?

I don't have any trouble hearing, but occasionally have a hard time distinguishing between dialog and background sounds, so I often watch things with captions on, and I've always thought that it would be good if Netflix supported them. So, I'm not saying it wouldn't be great, but I just don't see how a lawsuit makes anything better, especially when no one is being harmed, unless perhaps if Netflix wouldn't refund a deaf person who realized that they didn't have captions only after they signed up.
 
I actually cancelled Netflix because they promised captions/subs for streaming media by 2010 and they never provided it. By that time, Hulu was providing captions on the majority of the videos that were being put online. Any excuse given by Netflix is bullshit because any of us who rip DVDs knows how easy it can be to get subs extracted.

Hell, even Handbrake can extract CLOSED CAPTIONS in the video data areas as a text file for MKV rips. The technology is there, people know how to do it, it's proven and works well in various different ways... there's just no reason why it cannot be done.

Netflix had promised, for years, captioning for streaming... and they were still giving excuses for why it couldn't be delivered yet well after everyone else already had it for some time. First it was because of the plugin's limitations (and within a week, someone coded a subtitles widget for streaming within Silverlight)... then it was a rights issue... (all while Hulu was showing similar/same movies for free with subs)... I just gave up on it and canceled. One year later, still an issue.
 
This is a pathetic attention grab by NAD

Because 36 million deaf or hard of hearing people should have to go without based on what you constitute attention whoring...

Not to mention the many millions more who prefer to have the option to have subtitles/captions for volume, understandability or personal reasons? I'm one of the many who needs captions for Doctor Who. Or hell, any of the Law and Order stuff when it involves whispering, quiet scenes or people shouting over each other in a courtroom.

NAD had been bugging Netflix about this issue for a while.

http://www.nad.org/news/2009/10/nad-calls-out-netflix-captions

And even before then. Many people have been complaining about this for a while.

http://www.jaredlog.com/?p=1080 (May 2009)
http://hearinginformed.org/?p=161 (Jan 2009)
http://blog.netflix.com/2008/11/encoding-for-streaming.html (2008, their excuses for why it's "difficult"...)
http://www.hackingnetflix.com/2007/12/internet-video.html (2007, DeafDC posted a story about the lack of captions)

4 years. Minimum.

To do what Hulu was able to do nearly instantly.

This lawsuit was a long time coming and is being filed because Netflix has been dragging their heels long enough.
 
Guess I'll go file a lawsuit against GM for not making a car blind people can drive.

I once lived near somebody who had a disability sticker on their car because they were legally blind. Apparently he could make out vague shapes or something so they deemed him disabled based on it, yet still gave him a license to drive and a disabled sticker for his car.
 
Solution:
1. Stop all video streaming until they can provide captions in all possible languages. (so they can avoid lawsuits from every small minority group out there).

2. Provide the name & adress of everyone behind this lawsuit.

3. Wait until the lawyers involved beg them to restart the video streaming service.


Guess I'll go file a lawsuit against GM for not making a car blind people can drive.


The sheer ignorance in this post is quite profound.

I am deaf, I certainly didn't ask to be given this affliction, yet I live with it as best as I can. You are goddamn right I'm gonna stick up for my rights, because he that doesn't stand up for his rights or liberties deserves neither, a wise man once said.

The Americans With Disabilities Act exists for a reason, and that is to provide a reasonable amount of access to individuals with handicaps to the same experience given to non disabled individuals.

Captions and subtitles are relatively easy to implement, even hearing people use subtitles for their movies, shows, and whatnot, just look at Japanese anime that are given fansubs and translations from Japanese to English for us English speakers.

Captions and subtitles have become more and more prevalent since the late 90's when I started seeing more and more TV shows, live sports, live events, movies, and whatnot implement them so that I could access the same experience as others.

Netflix is a great service from all indications, but I am not a subscriber simply because they don't offer subtitles or captions, so therefore they are simply not interested in my business.

That is fine with me, since I always vote with my wallet on everything.
 
Netflix is a great service from all indications, but I am not a subscriber simply because they don't offer subtitles or captions, so therefore they are simply not interested in my business.

That is fine with me, since I always vote with my wallet on everything.

this statement is what its about not just filing a lawsuit. Dont use it if they wont support you.
 
I actually cancelled Netflix because they promised captions/subs for streaming media by 2010 and they never provided it. By that time, Hulu was providing captions on the majority of the videos that were being put online. Any excuse given by Netflix is bullshit because any of us who rip DVDs knows how easy it can be to get subs extracted.

Hell, even Handbrake can extract CLOSED CAPTIONS in the video data areas as a text file for MKV rips. The technology is there, people know how to do it, it's proven and works well in various different ways... there's just no reason why it cannot be done.

Netflix had promised, for years, captioning for streaming... and they were still giving excuses for why it couldn't be delivered yet well after everyone else already had it for some time. First it was because of the plugin's limitations (and within a week, someone coded a subtitles widget for streaming within Silverlight)... then it was a rights issue... (all while Hulu was showing similar/same movies for free with subs)... I just gave up on it and canceled. One year later, still an issue.

I agree, subs are easy to get, I can get them for just about anything I want, and I do! :)
 
So can I sue netflix for not de-interlacing videos prior to encoding them?.....

Um no i cant since netflix is only streaming the content not converting or encoding it.

They have no control over the quality or conversion since the video is sent to them from the studio kinda "as is" so it's not really up to Netflix to add subtitles after the fact and they do infact support subtitles when available.

I run into a similar problem with some anime on Netflix being dubbed without a option for Japanese audio and english subtitles even though they might be available on Hulu with both options.

So in the end This is a misplaced lawsuit, if the content is given to Netflix with subtitles they will support them and Netflix is not in a position to force them to do so,

Sue the studios for not adhearing to closed captioning maddates just because streaming isn't "broadcast" and set a precedent that way any and all streaming service will get access to the subtitled content.
 
this statement is what its about not just filing a lawsuit. Dont use it if they wont support you.

Aside from the fact that refusing to provide services for those with disabilities is illegal?

[ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Americans_with_Disabilities_Act_of_1990"]Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia@@AMEPARAM@@/wiki/File:US-GreatSeal-Obverse.svg" class="image"><img alt="Great Seal of the United States." src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/be/US-GreatSeal-Obverse.svg/140px-US-GreatSeal-Obverse.svg.png"@@AMEPARAM@@commons/thumb/b/be/US-GreatSeal-Obverse.svg/140px-US-GreatSeal-Obverse.svg.png[/ame]

There's a reason this lawsuit is happening now. Netflix has had over 4 years to get their shit together with constant reminders, and complaints, that people wanted captions and subtitles for ALL streaming content... something that is trivial to implement.

One thing that needs to be understood is as the business model moves away from physical media... the only, I repeat... ONLY, option that deaf/hard of hearing folks will have will eventually dry up. We can't see movies in the theater unless they're open captioned or subtitled, so we wait for releases to come out on DVD so that we can use the subs. As everything is now going towards streaming, it is expected that this future dominant method of entertainment will be accessible to others.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Closed_captions#Legislative_development_in_the_U.S.

QuothTheWiki said:
A bill, H.R. 3101, the Twenty-First Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act of 2010, was passed by the United States House of Representatives in July 2010, and was signed by President Barack Obama on October 8, 2010. The Act requires, in part, for HDTV-decoding set-top box remotes to have a button to turn on or off the closed captioning in the output signal. It also requires broadcasters to provide captioning for television programs redistributed on the web.

I voted with my wallet by canceling my Netflix service and telling them why I did.

My action doesn't carry much weight and despite the volume of complaints and reminders about the issue, Netflix still hasn't done what they were supposed to do all along... so now they're being SUED to force them to do it. They've had over 4 years to do this and a year since the bill has been floating around. Hulu managed to have captions for the majority of their content before this bill was even written.

There is simply no excuses.
 
The youtube video has subtitles, you just need to enable it. :)

Provided by YouTube...not NAD.


HOPEFULLY they did that on purpose to prove a point because, if not, they just bitched about no subtitles and then produced a video that discriminates against 99% of the population that can't read sign language! :D
 
"Civil Rights" is Orwellian for anti-rights. A "right" is a freedom the government can't interfere with.. A "civil right" means a freedom the people aren't allowed to have. This lawsuit says that Netflix has no right, no freedom, to stream video without captions.

Technically, streaming captions should be easy. Legally, I don't see an issue there, either. I've never heard of the subtitles having separate licensing issues. Such an thing is absurd.
 
ADA is bull crap. I'd really like to see that law stricken from the books.

It should boil down to this:

Funded with tax money = Full access to everyone. Everyone pays, everyone gets the benefits.

Funded by private money = The business decides what services they offer.

I really don't see a reason to force private companies to have full access except where it's required to live. IE. A supermarket, despite being privately owned, if you don't eat you die, therefore it should be required to be accessible. Last time I checked, nobody ever died from missing an episode of friends.
 
ADA is bull crap. I'd really like to see that law stricken from the books.

It should boil down to this:

Funded with tax money = Full access to everyone. Everyone pays, everyone gets the benefits.

Funded by private money = The business decides what services they offer.

I really don't see a reason to force private companies to have full access except where it's required to live. IE. A supermarket, despite being privately owned, if you don't eat you die, therefore it should be required to be accessible. Last time I checked, nobody ever died from missing an episode of friends.

More ignorance, I'm glad you're not in charge of our government.
 
Hmm, are these people going to sue every movie theater then? The last time I was in a theater, there were no captions on the screen. What about personal narrators that tell blind people whats happening?

Narrator
Now, Russel Crowe is chasing some person on a horse through the desert in the old American west.
Blind Guy
This movie sucks. Where is the nearest strip club? Guys like me always get special treatment in those places.

;)

Anyway, I fail to see why they decided Netflix alone was the people they should sue.
 
ADA is bull crap. I'd really like to see that law stricken from the books.

It should boil down to this:

Funded with tax money = Full access to everyone. Everyone pays, everyone gets the benefits.

Funded by private money = The business decides what services they offer.

I really don't see a reason to force private companies to have full access except where it's required to live. IE. A supermarket, despite being privately owned, if you don't eat you die, therefore it should be required to be accessible. Last time I checked, nobody ever died from missing an episode of friends.

Cheeky. Picking a genre only to support your case.
 
Under Title III, no individual may be discriminated against on the basis of disability with regards to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, or accommodations of any place of public accommodation by any person who owns, leases (or leases to), or operates a place of public accommodation. "Public accommodations" include most places of lodging (such as inns and hotels), recreation, transportation, education, and dining, along with stores, care providers, and places of public displays, among other things.

Under Title III of the ADA, all "new construction" (construction, modification or alterations) after the effective date of the ADA (approximately July 1992) must be fully compliant with the Americans With Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines ("ADAAG")[1] found in the Code of Federal Regulations at 28 C.F.R., Part 36, Appendix "A."

Title III also has application to existing facilities. One of the definitions of "discrimination" under Title III of the ADA is a "failure to remove" architectural barriers in existing facilities. See 42 U.S.C. § 12182(b)(2)(A)(iv). This means that even facilities that have not been modified or altered in any way after the ADA was passed still have obligations. The standard is whether "removing barriers" (typically defined as bringing a condition into compliance with the ADAAG) is "readily achievable," defined as "easily accomplished without much difficulty or expense."

The statutory definition of "readily achievable" calls for a balancing test between the cost of the proposed "fix" and the wherewithal of the business and/or owners of the business. Thus, what might be "readily achievable" for a sophisticated and financially capable corporation might not be readily achievable for a small or local business.

There are exceptions to this title; many private clubs and religious organizations may not be bound by Title III. With regard to historic properties (those properties that are listed or that are eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places, or properties designated as historic under State or local law), those facilities must still comply with the provisions of Title III of the ADA to the "maximum extent feasible" but if following the usual standards would "threaten to destroy the historic significance of a feature of the building" then alternative standards may be used. Nonetheless, as Frank Bowe predicted when he testified as the lead witness on Title III in the Senate hearings leading up to enactment[citation needed], the fact that Title III calls for accessibility in, and alterations to, thousands of stores, restaurants, hotels, etc., in thousands of communities across the U.S. means that this Title probably has had more effect on the lives of more Americans with disabilities than any other ADA title.[9]






Title IV of the ADA amended the landmark Communications Act of 1934 primarily by adding section 47 U.S.C. § 225. This section requires that all telecommunications companies in the U.S. take steps to ensure functionally equivalent services for consumers with disabilities, notably those who are deaf or hard of hearing and those with speech impairments. When Title IV took effect in the early 1990s, it led to installation of public Teletypewriter (TTY) machines and other TDDs (Telecommunications Device for the Deaf). Title IV also led to creation, in all 50 States and the District of Columbia, of what were then called dual-party relay services and now are known as Telecommunications Relay Services (TRS), such as STS Relay. Today, many TRS-mediated calls are made over the Internet by consumers who use broadband connections. Some are Video Relay Service (VRS) calls, while others are text calls. In either variation, communication assistants translate between the signed/typed words of a consumer and the spoken words of others. In 2006, according to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), VRS calls averaged two million minutes a month.



The ADA is all about providing access to deaf people and people with other kinds of disabilities, such as cripples, paraplegics, and whatnot, access to goods and services that other people use. That INCLUDES businesses.

The fact that you don't know the law or it's purpose only really shines the spotlight on your ignorance.
 
Hmm, are these people going to sue every movie theater then? The last time I was in a theater, there were no captions on the screen. What about personal narrators that tell blind people whats happening?

Anyway, I fail to see why they decided Netflix alone was the people they should sue.

If you're not trying to be a dumb troll, perhaps you could bother yourself to actually read the posts before commenting.
 
Isn't there "an App for that"?

Seriously, seems like it would be a great money maker for someone to make an app to turn speach into text for netflix or even have it enabled in Silverlight.
Why hasn't Microsoft done this??? I mean they make the player.
 
While it sucks, this is just not needed, if you don't like it use DVD's you don't have the right to force someone to provide you content.
 
I have rethought my position. It probably isn't being done because then Lawyers from the MPAA would sue Netflix for copyright infringement because they have NO RIGHT to turn copyrighted speech into text.

AND YOU KNOW IT WOULD HAPPEN
 
I once lived near somebody who had a disability sticker on their car because they were legally blind. Apparently he could make out vague shapes or something so they deemed him disabled based on it, yet still gave him a license to drive and a disabled sticker for his car.

 
More ignorance, I'm glad you're not in charge of our government.

How is it "ignorant"? Sorry, but I feel that forcing private companies to cater to a certain demographic is anti-American. If there really *is* a huge demand for a captioning service via streaming, then someone will make the product and rake in killer profits. You know, free market and all.

If you decided to start your own streaming service with no sound, and only captions, I wouldn't bitch and moan about it, I just wouldn't buy it.
 
I still haven't figured out why Netflix hasn't done this on their own. The data is there in the movie, they just need to... add an option to display it.

Why they don't want a larger customer base for very little work is beyond me.
 
How is it "ignorant"? Sorry, but I feel that forcing private companies to cater to a certain demographic is anti-American. If there really *is* a huge demand for a captioning service via streaming, then someone will make the product and rake in killer profits. You know, free market and all.

If you decided to start your own streaming service with no sound, and only captions, I wouldn't bitch and moan about it, I just wouldn't buy it.

Well, if you become a cripple in the future and are unable to get around without a motorized wheelchair, and you lived in a world where there were no handicap accessible ramps, you should remember your post here.

Thankfully, in the future, if you DO become a cripple, you won't have to live in a world like that thanks to the ADA.

The ADA is all about providing access, and another poster already stated why the lawsuit exists and why it is important.

In the future, theaters will no longer exist, since we all most likely will be able to watch movies on demand when they come out, so the theater experience won't be neccessary anymore.

With that in mind, we will need captions and subtitles, otherwise we will not have reasonable access or accomadation to the same experiences that other non disabled people will enjoy.

It's an important step in the right direction.
 
The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) was passed July 26, 1990 as Public Law 101-336 (42 U.S.C. Sec. 12101 et seq ) and became effective on January 26, 1992. The ADA is landmark federal legislation that opens up services and employment opportunities to the 43 million Americans with disabilities. The law was written to strike a balance between the reasonable accommodation of citizens' needs and the capacity of private and public entities to respond. It is not an affirmative action law but is intended to eliminate illegal discrimination and level the playing field for disabled individuals.

The law is comprised of five titles that prohibit discrimination against disabled persons within the United States. Titles I and II are the primary sections that affect local governments.

Title I prohibits employers, including cities and towns, from discriminating against qualified job applicants and workers who are or who become disabled. The law covers all aspects of employment including the application process and hiring, training, compensation, advancement, and any other employment term, condition, or privilege.

Title II prohibits state and local governments from discriminating against disabled persons in their programs and activities. Title II also sets forth the applicable structural accessibility requirements for public entities.

Title III prohibits private enterprises who provide public accommodations and services (e.g., hotels, restaurants, and transit systems) from denying goods, services and programs to people based on their disabilities. Title III also sets forth the applicable structural accessibility requirements for private entities.

Title IV makes available telecommunications devices and services for the hearing and speech impaired. These regulations spell out certain mandatory minimum standards telephone companies must maintain to be in compliance with the ADA.

Title V includes some miscellaneous provisions that relate to the construction and application of the ADA, including alternative dispute resolution.
 
Netflix is a great service from all indications, but I am not a subscriber simply because they don't offer subtitles or captions, so therefore they are simply not interested in my business.

That is fine with me, since I always vote with my wallet on everything.

this is exactly why they should not be legally required to provide subtitles. its a private company, they should be free to provide any type of product in any form they want. a company shouldnt be able to deny providing the same service to a specific group of people, that it provides to everyone else. but if its a service that they dont provide to anyone at all, they shouldnt be legally required to start.

netflix should be free to offer all of their videos without any sound and only with a sign language guy in the corner, if they so choose, at the detriment to everyone who doesnt read sign language. its their choice to do that.

the hearing impaired and anyone else who wants subtitles still has the right to request it from the company. sign petitions, put up billboards, withhold your money. whatever you want to do to get their attention- fine. but to legally obligate them to provide a service... im not exactly sure why people think that is ok.
 
To make lawyers rich. That's the real reason for it.
What lawyers? Any violation of the ADA will be reported to the United States Government and they come down on your ass for discrimination, not private lawyers.
 
What lawyers? Any violation of the ADA will be reported to the United States Government and they come down on your ass for discrimination, not private lawyers.

Like I said man, all the ignorant people come out of the woodwork when there's something of substance to be discussed.

This isn't your typical thread that requires mindless thinking, yet lots of ignorant people are posting in it.

If you guys spent a few minutes actually reading the Wikipedia entry for the ADA act, which someone even posted, you'd be better educated on not only what it does, because IT IS THE LAW, but you'd understand the reason for it and why it's neccessary.
 
Because 36 million deaf or hard of hearing people should have to go without based on what you constitute attention whoring...

This lawsuit was a long time coming and is being filed because Netflix has been dragging their heels long enough.

While I can sympathize with the deaf I don't believe that the courts should be able to tell a private company (privately held, not tax payer funded) how to run their business.

If Netflix doesn't want to do subtitles then there is nothing anyone should be able to do about that. You choose to pay for their service. Don't like the service? Don't subscribe. Easy as that.
 
Under Title III, no individual may be discriminated against on the basis of disability with regards to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, or accommodations of any place of public accommodation by any person who owns, leases (or leases to), or operates a place of public accommodation. "Public accommodations" include most places of lodging (such as inns and hotels), recreation, transportation, education, and dining, along with stores, care providers, and places of public displays, among other things.

Under Title III of the ADA, all "new construction" (construction, modification or alterations) after the effective date of the ADA (approximately July 1992) must be fully compliant with the Americans With Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines ("ADAAG")[1] found in the Code of Federal Regulations at 28 C.F.R., Part 36, Appendix "A."

Title III also has application to existing facilities. One of the definitions of "discrimination" under Title III of the ADA is a "failure to remove" architectural barriers in existing facilities. See 42 U.S.C. § 12182(b)(2)(A)(iv). This means that even facilities that have not been modified or altered in any way after the ADA was passed still have obligations. The standard is whether "removing barriers" (typically defined as bringing a condition into compliance with the ADAAG) is "readily achievable," defined as "easily accomplished without much difficulty or expense."

The statutory definition of "readily achievable" calls for a balancing test between the cost of the proposed "fix" and the wherewithal of the business and/or owners of the business. Thus, what might be "readily achievable" for a sophisticated and financially capable corporation might not be readily achievable for a small or local business.

There are exceptions to this title; many private clubs and religious organizations may not be bound by Title III. With regard to historic properties (those properties that are listed or that are eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places, or properties designated as historic under State or local law), those facilities must still comply with the provisions of Title III of the ADA to the "maximum extent feasible" but if following the usual standards would "threaten to destroy the historic significance of a feature of the building" then alternative standards may be used. Nonetheless, as Frank Bowe predicted when he testified as the lead witness on Title III in the Senate hearings leading up to enactment[citation needed], the fact that Title III calls for accessibility in, and alterations to, thousands of stores, restaurants, hotels, etc., in thousands of communities across the U.S. means that this Title probably has had more effect on the lives of more Americans with disabilities than any other ADA title.[9]






Title IV of the ADA amended the landmark Communications Act of 1934 primarily by adding section 47 U.S.C. § 225. This section requires that all telecommunications companies in the U.S. take steps to ensure functionally equivalent services for consumers with disabilities, notably those who are deaf or hard of hearing and those with speech impairments. When Title IV took effect in the early 1990s, it led to installation of public Teletypewriter (TTY) machines and other TDDs (Telecommunications Device for the Deaf). Title IV also led to creation, in all 50 States and the District of Columbia, of what were then called dual-party relay services and now are known as Telecommunications Relay Services (TRS), such as STS Relay. Today, many TRS-mediated calls are made over the Internet by consumers who use broadband connections. Some are Video Relay Service (VRS) calls, while others are text calls. In either variation, communication assistants translate between the signed/typed words of a consumer and the spoken words of others. In 2006, according to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), VRS calls averaged two million minutes a month.



The ADA is all about providing access to deaf people and people with other kinds of disabilities, such as cripples, paraplegics, and whatnot, access to goods and services that other people use. That INCLUDES businesses.

The fact that you don't know the law or it's purpose only really shines the spotlight on your ignorance.

Netflix is a public accomodation? I would define it as a website. If they will be required by law to accomodate everybody on the planet at any expense then the entire web should be required as well.
 
First off assholes.

I used to work for a business where they sold Bridgemaxx Wireless internet and you couldn't purchase one without signing a contract. The business sold a contract to a deaf woman with the understanding that it would work with any of her equipments that she needed even the Sorensen VRS (Internet Video Relay Chat w/ no audio). They lied to her and when she came back to complain that it didn't work, they refused to cancel her contract. I told my boss to cancel the contract or I will report him to the United States Government and he might face a potential fine worth more than the contract. He canceled it after some calls and then the next day I got fired. Fuck him and there's idiots like some of the posters on this thread that would love to agree with this guy. Deaf people get constantly taken advantage of all the fucking time every damn day and it's a shitty situation all the time. Netflix does the same shit selling a product to you assholes and yet they refuse to update their system to simply integrate the most basic file which is less than 200KB. There are even subtitle websites (subscene, addic7ed, etc) that they can get from if they need to do so. These jackasses deserves what's coming to them and the NAD has been warning them for years.
 
Netflix is a public accomodation? I would define it as a website. If they will be required by law to accomodate everybody on the planet at any expense then the entire web should be required as well.

If you knew anything about subtitles, you'd know that the only thing they would need to do is offer an option for them to be displayed, since they are already on the discs that they are given to stream.

There's no "expense" incurred from this.
 
Back
Top