So you're okay with private businesses scamming the shit out of the Deaf just because you think that the courts shouldn't do it? So you're fine with contractual obligations that declares you must forfeit your life pending the failure of something you agreed to? Absurd argument right? No, it isn't and the courts should always have access even down to private institutions.
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
NAD Files Disability Civil Rights Lawsuit against Netflix
- Thread starter HardOCP News
- Start date
BoogerBomb
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2003
- Messages
- 6,470
I
I would say that is a different situation as the service was contractually guaranteed. In the case of Netflix I dont think they guarantee CC.
I would say that is a different situation as the service was contractually guaranteed. In the case of Netflix I dont think they guarantee CC.
What does your example have to do with Netflix? Wait, wait, don't tell me ...., NOTHING!
ADA doesn't apply for numerous reasons one of which is that Netflix is not a broadcaster, it's content on demand. No one promised that it would work for deaf people.
If I run a business, and someone with a disability comes to me and demands that I may my service work for them then I may consider to do it but there is nothing that can be done to legally compel me to do it. That should really be obvious.
I assume this is the part the netflix thing falls under. It's still BS.
Not including captions is NOT discrimination. Discrimination is going out of your way to intentionally fuck someone over. If there is no money to be made or it costs the business money in terms of profitability (not enough return on investment) to implement the changes, then in my mind they aren't discriminating, they are just following good business sense. If there isn't enough market for the product to be profitable, then the product doesn't get made, it's that simple. No business should be forced to sell a product at a loss.
If the "math" has been done, and Netflix as a public company could make money off of closed captioning, and their upper management refuses to do it, the investors should take it to the Netflix board of directors or whatnot for negligence to investors (falls under FCIC investors rights - Best effort management).
Please take a break from your rage and explain now Netflix (which is the original topic of this thread) is scamming the deaf.
BladeVenom
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Jun 29, 2005
- Messages
- 7,707
The government is fining Netflix. They are being sued. The lawyers are going to make a fortune.
BladeVenom
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Jun 29, 2005
- Messages
- 7,707
The law firm is, Lewis, Feinberg, Lee, Renaker & Jackson P.C.
No, it isn't. It's all the same. Every business must sell their product with the expectation that they do not discriminate even among deaf people. Should I sell shotguns and pistols to white people only with the argument that black people are responsible for violent crimes? Netflix has been promising PROMISING constantly that they would provide subtitles for years even on their blog going back to like '08. Guess what happened? They kept stalling and lying that it was coming soon! NAD got pissed off and fed up with their stalling tactics because deaf people keep paying for a service that keeps ripping them off.
Hmm are you 100% about this. Streaming is totally different then the DVD business. Netflix is given the rights to stream the content but do the contracts include subtitles?
BladeVenom
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Jun 29, 2005
- Messages
- 7,707
The government isn't fining Netflix. They are being sued. The lawyers are going to make a fortune.
I'm sure Netflix's lawyers are held on retainer like any smart businesses should be doing. The United States Government does not make money off the fines and turns those fines over to those who have been discriminated against.
Example: A deaf couple went to order food in a restaurant and they were mocked constantly by the management and waiters/waitresses for their use of sign language. USG found out about it, fined them $25,000 to the couple that was discriminated against.
Sry but Netflix is not ripping anybody off. If you are unhappy cancel.
I can't believe you are even making such an argument.
By your logic all book publishers must provide their books in either braille or as audio books to "comply with the ADA" and not "scam the blind". My hat is off to you Sir, that really was one of the most subtle trolling I have seen in a while.
NAD disagrees.
Don't care. You know what they're shaking them down for? Lack of disability parking spaces, ramps, etc in regards to construction codes. This bullshit isn't new to me. Now tell me, how can you shake down a business for lack of support towards the deaf? Netflix constantly promised that they would be integrating subtitle supports for their movies for more than 4 years and they kept stalling. They deserved this.
You'd be surprised but these book publishers do!
BoogerBomb
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2003
- Messages
- 6,470
NAD will probably lose. It may bring up how to incorporate the ADA into the internet as it isnt a U.S. entity but an international one.
The deaf are not entitled to Netflix service. Does this really need to be said?
You are making a 100% appeal to emotion which is a logical fallacy.
No one got ripped off. If you are deaf, and you want Netflix with subtitles, then you check whether they have it, if they don't then you don't subscribe. You don't subscribe for 4 years to a service you can't use, unless you are deaf and retarded.
Incorrect. Disability lawsuit <> ripping off people.
OMG you are a troll, haha, good one mate.
Not every book published by U.S. based publishers exists as braille or audio book. I only need to find a single one (if I could be bothered) to completely disprove your argument that all businesses are required by law to ensure that all services are available to all disabled persons.
No, they won't. They are an entity that have been around for more than 120 years and have been a strong advocate of deaf rights and access to use that everyone else uses. Netflix is on the losing side here since they have documented that they were promising to bring subtitles support for years yet refused to do so. Especially the ADA was modified in 2010 to be enforceable to web technology which also includes Netflix.
rat
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Apr 16, 2008
- Messages
- 4,915
Netflix promised captions. They've yet to deliver upon that promise and a law has been passed since requiring that all streams of broadcast material needs to have captions.
Law: 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.
Promise: http://blog.netflix.com/2009/06/closed-captions-and-subtitles.html
They've been reminded for well over 4 years that this was desired, and then required. They failed to deliver. I canceled my subscription because of this. Do I feel scammed that I was paying for a service I couldn't use as they said I would be able to by 2010? Yes.
The deaf are entitled to the same accommodation and rights as everyone else enjoys in their everyday life. This libertarian smug attitude that you employ does not apply here and you will not be allowed to do so even in a private establishment or business that you own.
And round doorknobs. They're illegal in America you know!
rat
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Apr 16, 2008
- Messages
- 4,915
Gotta love those "contrarian" bullshit arguments that aren't really much more than thinly veiled screeds of bigotry. After all, by his own argument, private businesses shouldn't have to serve black customers if they didn't want to. So why should they serve deaf customers as required by law? The Libhurrrtarian matra of letting the invisible hand of the free market really worked so fucking well that Netflix had to be reminded for years that there were customers who wanted these features...
I've seen the video before since I am a fan of Penn & Teller and my argument also proves this. They did not mention anything about the deaf, only on the physical handicapped regarding construction codes.
BoogerBomb
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2003
- Messages
- 6,470
Is Netflix defined as a broadcaster seeing as how they simply provide videos that you chose, not you watch what they stream and nothing else.
You're right about this. The same accommodations. On netflix everyone gets sound, nobody gets captions, they are getting exactly the same thing as everybody else, so they're good.
Also netflix isn't a "right", LOL. If it is a right, why don't poor people get it for free?
Don't think ADA should apply to services/products that hold no real importance to any day to day life. This isn't a ramp at a post office or the braille school lunch menu. It's Netflix a 100% completely optional service.
The only reason Netflix is being sued is because they have deep pockets. If you feel a legitimate claim actually exists here then where do we draw the line? Going to sue the mini golf place because the balls don't have bells on them? Going to sue the gym because they don't have wheelchair treadmills?
The only reason Netflix is being sued is because they have deep pockets. If you feel a legitimate claim actually exists here then where do we draw the line? Going to sue the mini golf place because the balls don't have bells on them? Going to sue the gym because they don't have wheelchair treadmills?
For the extra slow among us; Netflix is not broadcast streaming!
Helloooooo, it's point to point video on demand. Not broadcast!
No one is actually disputing that. However, no one, deaf or not, has the legal right to Netflix service.
And you're suggesting that NAD, a non-profit organization, with a huge history of 120 years of deaf advocacy is doing this for money? No, they're doing this to fight for equal access that Deaf people across the board are entitled to that you also enjoy. Netflix has constantly lied to the deaf community for more than 4 years saying that they will integrate it completely and yet has to do so although it is within their means to do so. Afterall, since Netflix is a multimillion dollar corporation, they should have it easy to establish subtitles, no? Afterall, their engine that they use has the capability to integrate subtitles through Microsoft's VC-1 engine. I've encoded in VC-1 and the capabilities is there, they just won't do it.
BoogerBomb
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2003
- Messages
- 6,470
You are right, the NAD chose Netflix for nothing but publicity and moneym. I highly doubt they are the one and only video service on the entire internet that doesn't guarantee CC. They are simply the ones with the most money. The smaller ones are worth it because they probably operate at cost or lose money.
BoogerBomb
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2003
- Messages
- 6,470
Aren't*
Actually NAD, I, and plenty of others is disputing that. Why? You have more access to use Netflix and enjoy the opportunity presented in the product that they're selling to you than the Deaf is. Their blog which they keep lying on saying "Yes we got subtitles! More are on the way!" is contrary to what they offer and keep taking money for a product that they supposedly do offer. They're stealing up to half a billion dollars from the deaf since there are 36 million of them in the United States.
You're totally right. Their history of suing entities for money is backed by 120 years of history. Please give me a great example of plundering private institutions because they have deep pockets for the benefit of NAD.
Sorry, but having a disability means you might not be able to do some things, or certain things might be harder. That's why they call them cripples, because they're crippled. Society shouldn't bend to every little fucking whim you have while your wearing that pointy hat at your pity party.
I'd like to be a professional basketball player, but I'm only 5'4". Maybe I should sue the NBA because the nets are too high and the 7 footers can slam dunk and I can't, so they're discriminating against the equal opportunity of shorties like me........ or maybe I should just suck it up and not try and be a pro ball player because it just wasn't in my fucking cards. We all have proficiencies and deficiencies, instead of trying to legislate them away, how about manning up for yourself and taking control?
So.... You're saying you will refuse to service a deaf person because that's the card that is dealt to them? Thanks for confirming your discriminatory attitude.