NAD Files Disability Civil Rights Lawsuit against Netflix

techrat said:
Yes, because "whites only" is certainly allowed in this day and age. I'd like to see you try that.
Click to expand...

I can't stand arguments like this. It has no bearing. The cost of delivering video to a white person who can hear is the same as a colored person who can hear. The cost of adding captions is higher. I do not see why everyone needs to bend over backwards and pay more because a minority have a problem.

If there is enough demand vote with your wallet. Drop Netflix. Buy competing services that have CC. I cannot stand how lawsuit happy special interests are. Disabilities are terrible, but just because someone with a disability has it tougher, doesn't mean everyone else has to pay for it.

.
 
demingo said:
I can't stand arguments like this. It has no bearing. The cost of delivering video to a white person who can hear is the same as a colored person who can hear. The cost of adding captions is higher. I do not see why everyone needs to bend over backwards and pay more because a minority have a problem.

If there is enough demand vote with your wallet. Drop Netflix. Buy competing services that have CC. I cannot stand how lawsuit happy special interests are. Disabilities are terrible, but just because someone with a disability has it tougher, doesn't mean everyone else has to pay for it.

.
Click to expand...

I think we've already established that you WILL pay for it regardless of your wishes.
 
If they win, we pay for it either way. Either Netflix increases their monthly fees or the government uses our tax money to cover the extra costs. Likely both would happen.

I wonder what these people would say if they offered the regular monthly service and then added like $5-10/mo for adding subtitles. I imagine THEN it is definitely discriminating because the cost is different for two groups of people.. *rolls eyes*
 
DuronClocker said:
If they win, we pay for it either way. Either Netflix increases their monthly fees or the government uses our tax money to cover the extra costs. Likely both would happen.

I wonder what these people would say if they offered the regular monthly service and then added like $5-10/mo for adding subtitles. I imagine THEN it is definitely discriminating because the cost is different for two groups of people.. *rolls eyes*
Click to expand...

Subtitles were promised before ALL accounts had a rate increase because of the added streaming features. Even the rental-only plans.

So you're already paying for what Netflix hasn't bothered to do. Hence the lawsuit.

Nice try getting that teabagger "Grrr, Gub'mint makin' us pay more!" paranoid screed in there.
 
Kaitian said:
No, they're doing this to fight for equal access that Deaf people across the board are entitled to that you also enjoy.
Click to expand...

LOL at anyone that thinks they are entitled to Netflix. Jesus H Christ, what the hell has happened to this country?
 
Helicopter said:
LOL at anyone that thinks they are entitled to Netflix. Jesus H Christ, what the hell has happened to this country?
Click to expand...

Sociopaths failed to (mostly) take over is what happened. Now they just armchair LOL their positions and parrot the next talking point about how Gubmit is gonna be installing cameras in your bedrooms...

Meanwhile, Netflix is still breaking the law.
 
Helicopter said:
LOL at anyone that thinks they are entitled to Netflix. Jesus H Christ, what the hell has happened to this country?
Click to expand...
The country changes constantly especially when the ADA passed in 1990 and was amended in 2008 & 2010. Yes, the country went to hell because the ADA actually helps people. The point isn't that they're "entitled" as you like to claim, it's that they lied to the Deaf community about their offering of subtitles with a bait and switch tactic. Without logging into your account, you can see that there is no directory for subtitles only which makes it a hassle to find the shows you want. Way less than 20% of the US-based movies are subtitled contrary to their claim of 30%+ with 80%+ by the end of the year. The reason for this is that they counted in foreign subtitled films to boost their count which is extremely misleading. As I've always maintained, if they had stated that they've had licensing issues and responded to NAD instead of ignoring them, they would have gotten this resolved easily with licensing issues possibly renegotiated to an acceptable level. Unlike the idiots that thinks these lawyers are in it to make money, it's obvious that they're on a retainer and stated in the brief.
Plaintiffs are asking the court to declare that Netflix's behavior constitutes a violation of Title III of the ADA, and to require that Netflix provide closed captions on all of its streaming content.
Click to expand...
 
techrat said:
Sociopaths failed to (mostly) take over is what happened. Now they just armchair LOL their positions and parrot the next talking point about how Gubmit is gonna be installing cameras in your bedrooms...

Meanwhile, Netflix is still breaking the law.
Click to expand...

Look kid, I agree that Netflix should provide subtitles/closed captions, and I would be surprised if they raised their rates as it's not something complicated that would require any ongoing charges. The problem is that you are so far removed from reality that you can't even see the ludicrousness of even being able to say the phrase "Netflix is breaking the law" for not providing subtitles.
 
Kaitian said:
The point isn't that they're "entitled" as you like to claim, it's that they lied to the Deaf community about their offering of subtitles with a bait and switch tactic.
Click to expand...

I didn't claim they were entitled, you did, I even quoted you.

Without logging into your account, you can see that there is no directory for subtitles only which makes it a hassle to find the shows you want. Way less than 20% of the US-based movies are subtitled contrary to their claim of 30%+ with 80%+ by the end of the year. The reason for this is that they counted in foreign subtitled films to boost their count which is extremely misleading. As I've always maintained, if they had stated that they've had licensing issues and responded to NAD instead of ignoring them, they would have gotten this resolved easily with licensing issues possibly renegotiated to an acceptable level. Unlike the idiots that thinks these lawyers are in it to make money, it's obvious that they're on a retainer and stated in the brief.
Click to expand...

Than the way to deal with them is for the deaf community at large to boycott their service, I'm sure if it were organized right, and promoted well you could even get a significant number of hearing people to boycott with you, but clogging up the courts to sue a private company because they aren't providing a non-essential service is retarded.
 
techrat said:
Fixed that for you. Can't wait until you're old enough to be demanding more than your share of entitlements because fuck everyone else and what they deserve, you've got yours and you don't care how you'll get it. You'll probably end up just like your queen did. http://www.alternet.org/teaparty/14...l_security_and_medicare_when_she_needed_them/
Click to expand...

Time to get owned.

I'm 32. Went to college that I pay for myself...or was. Got a job as the Director of IT at a large medical group. Worked my ass off.

Had a major back surgery when I was 13 that lead to me needing another one about a year and a half ago. The doctors screwed it up. I'm suppose to be taking around 400 mg of morphine a day and 2500 mg of neurontin. Barely helps the pain. Oh, did I mention my spine is completely fused from hip to almost my shoulders? Yeah....

2010-03-09144714.jpg

IMAG0214.jpg


I was forced to file for disability through no fault of my own. But guess what? I STILL drag my ass to work for a couple hours a day or until I'm about to cry from the pain.

I would NEVER demand a company do all sorts of ridiculous shit just because some people thought I deserved it. I got butchered by a doctor and I still don't think I deserve anything. I'm just thankful we have a system that helps people like me. What I don't like is people who abuse the system.

So spare me what you think you know about me. I've been through more in my life (not even including this) that you can ever dream of and I DON'T THINK I'M ENTITLED TO ANYTHING. Anyone who thinks they are entitled to anything besides the rights afforded to them by the Constitution needs a kick in the teeth to bring them back to reality.

Oh, and to the other people I was debating with earlier...I was unaware Netflix promised this and then reneged. That makes it completely different. If they said they were going to do it, charged for it, and then didn't....sue them until the cows come home.
 
Helicopter said:
I didn't claim they were entitled, you did, I even quoted you.
Click to expand...
No, you misunderstood then. I was talking about equal access which encompasses anything that they're entitled to no different from those who do not have disabilities. The guy claimed that they were doing this because they supposedly have deep pockets which is wrong. As I've already shown from the brief, they are certainly not doing this for monetary compensation.
Than the way to deal with them is for the deaf community at large to boycott their service, I'm sure if it were organized right, and promoted well you could even get a significant number of hearing people to boycott with you, but clogging up the courts to sue a private company because they aren't providing a non-essential service is retarded.
Click to expand...
How can you boycott a product that doesn't work for them and they stop using it the first month they checked it out? We're in somewhat of an ADHD/ADD period where people really don't give a fuck anymore. Also they are not "clogging" up the courts because this is 1 case in 1 court circuit that is a valid one. You should go back to reading the ADA and read over Title III which was also amended back in 2010 under the Twenty-First Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act.
http://www.nad.org/news/2010/10/nad-applauds-congress-increasing-access-technology-and-internet
Plus why do you get to decide that this is clogging up our court system which this isn't a lawsuit for monetary compensation and not other cases?
 
Kaitian said:
We're in somewhat of an ADHD/ADD period where people really don't give a fuck anymore..... Also they are not "clogging" up the courts because this is 1 case in 1 court circuit that is a valid one. You should go back to reading the ADA and read over Title III which was also amended back in 2010 under the Twenty-First Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act.
http://www.nad.org/news/2010/10/nad-applauds-congress-increasing-access-technology-and-internet
Click to expand...

That's quite an assumption. Where the government is concerned, I'm worried about *real* issues getting addressed first. Global warming, national defecit, trade imbalances, our laggardness in developing new future energy sources (which effects national security in the long run), etc. I could give less than a crap if some whiner can't see subtitles in friends from an optional, and luxury entertainment service. It's called not sweating the small stuff. Sorry for you, but the more rational people among us have much more important things on their minds. Your "big cause" of subtitles in netflix is a festering afterbirth, it's unimportant, and as such it is clogging up our legal system needlessly.

As far as it's "valid" under the law, just because it's the "law" doesn't make it right. If that's the case, black people should never been afforded the freedom to pick their seat on the bus, you know, it being the "law" at the time and all.
 
canna said:
That's quite an assumption. Where the government is concerned, I'm worried about *real* issues getting addressed first. Global warming, national defecit, trade imbalances, our laggardness in developing new future energy sources (which effects national security in the long run), etc. I could give less than a crap if some whiner can't see subtitles in friends from an optional, and luxury entertainment service. It's called not sweating the small stuff. Sorry for you, but the more rational people among us have much more important things on their minds. Your "big cause" of subtitles in netflix is a festering afterbirth, it's unimportant, and as such it is clogging up our legal system needlessly.

As far as it's "valid" under the law, just because it's the "law" doesn't make it right. If that's the case, black people should never been afforded the freedom to pick their seat on the bus, you know, it being the "law" at the time and all.
Click to expand...
There is nothing unjust about the ADA designed to HELP a disadvantaged group of people unlike the Jim Crow laws that were intentionally designed to SUPPRESS a specific group. Big fucking difference there and it's absurd of you to make the comparsion between the two types of laws.

Now this is being settled in the court which this is occurring on private grounds. Like you and other people making assumptions, there is no monetary compensations being demanded but rather on the question of access to subtitles. Since Netflix played up the game of lying, they deserved the consequences. You bring up all the political issues facing our nation today which is fine and all but this is a case between NAD & it's associated groups and Netflix. Again I suggest you re-read Title III and the Twenty-First Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act which is what is being applied to this case.
 
Kaitian said:
No, you misunderstood then. I was talking about equal access which encompasses anything that they're entitled to no different from those who do not have disabilities.
Click to expand...

That's good and all, but even people that aren't disabled aren't "entitled" to Netflix. It's a non-essential service provided by a private company.
 
Helicopter said:
That's good and all, but even people that aren't disabled aren't "entitled" to Netflix. It's a non-essential service provided by a private company.
Click to expand...

And? Your opinion does not override Title III of the ADA. You seem to be rejecting Title III for your own personal belief system although it is the law of the land which it also applies to private businesses. We're talking about subtitles here for "current" customers that are very limited in the sense that they do not enjoy equal access and it fails the Title III test.
 
Kaitian said:
And? Your opinion does not override Title III of the ADA. You seem to be rejecting Title III for your own personal belief system although it is the law of the land which it also applies to private businesses. We're talking about subtitles here for "current" customers that are very limited in the sense that they do not enjoy equal access and it fails the Title III test.
Click to expand...

You can keep going on, and on about "law of the land" but that doesn't change it's absurdity.

If you want to sue them because they lied to you, and didn't give you a refund, than have a blast, but suing a private company that provides a non-essential service, just because it fits into some absurd law is exactly the kind of problem that is turning this country to shit, and making the judicial system a joke.
 
techrat said:
Meanwhile, Netflix is still breaking the law.
Click to expand...
Meanwhile you are still confused. It's been demonstrated time and again that the only people who think that Netflix is breaking the law are those who want to compell a private company by law to changed the attributes of a product they provide to accommodate people with disabilities.

Why aren't you crusading for Amazon to provide all their books in audio or braille? Well, because that would be ridiculous, just as the demand that Netflix provide CC for all their media streams.

Kaitian said:
And? Your opinion does not override Title III of the ADA. You seem to be rejecting Title III for your own personal belief system although it is the law of the land which it also applies to private businesses. We're talking about subtitles here for "current" customers that are very limited in the sense that they do not enjoy equal access and it fails the Title III test.
Click to expand...

Which of the 12 categories of public accommodation do you think Netflix is?
ADA Title III doesn't even apply, doesn't take a genius to figure that out.
 
Boomstick said:
Time to get owned.

(Cut out the pretty lame "woe is me, give me pity because going through all of this makes me better than you because I'm bitching and moaning how "YA DON'T KNOW ME, BEEEITTCH! to someone I don't know." hypocritical BS)

I was forced to file for disability through no fault of my own. But guess what? I STILL drag my ass to work for a couple hours a day or until I'm about to cry from the pain.
Click to expand...

So, you want medal? Good for you. You still filed. Nothing forced you to accept the reward. Calling it 'forced' is quite disingenuous. You got screwed, you could have sued and instead you accepted entitlements from the government instead of damages from the doctor who fucked up.

Boomstick said:
Oh, and to the other people I was debating with earlier...I was unaware Netflix promised this and then reneged. That makes it completely different. If they said they were going to do it, charged for it, and then didn't....sue them until the cows come home.
Click to expand...

http://hardforum.com/showpost.php?p=1037396856&postcount=9

Post number nine, first page in this thread. Mine.

Thyself said:
I actually cancelled Netflix because they promised captions/subs for streaming media by 2010 and they never provided it. ... 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.
Click to expand...

And then there's post number 10: http://hardforum.com/showpost.php?p=1037396904&postcount=10

Also mine.

Thyself said:
NAD had been bugging Netflix about this issue for a while.
http://www.nad.org/news/2009/10/nad-...tflix-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/enco...streaming.html (2008, their excuses for why it's "difficult"...)
http://www.hackingnetflix.com/2007/1...net-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.
Click to expand...

Your first post in this thread?

http://hardforum.com/showpost.php?p=1037400259&postcount=164

Number 164.

You would have known had you even bothered to read the first page of the comments, not the whole thread of 9 pages until you posted, JUST THE FIRST PAGE before responding.

Since the time they had promised captions for all streaming media by 2010, they raised the rates on ALL PLANS to include streaming costs.

Thus the lawsuit.

You would have known this had you even paid attention before looking for a reason to chime in about your superiority through suffering.
 
Kaitian said:
There is nothing unjust about the ADA designed to HELP a disadvantaged group of people unlike the Jim Crow laws that were intentionally designed to SUPPRESS a specific group. Big fucking difference there and it's absurd of you to make the comparsion between the two types of laws.
Click to expand...

Thanks for proving my point. It's not that big of a difference at all. ADA laws SUPRRESS my private property rights for others benefits. The bottom line is you can't "help" someone by making a third and unrelated party pay for it and not harm said third party, either financially or otherwise. In terms of freedoms, Jim crow and segregation laws were wrong, and ADA laws are currently wrong. Laws are supposed to be used to uphold justice, not "help" the unfortunate at the expense of everyone else.

Now if you want to sue netflix for falsely advertising that they will have captions by X date, and then not delivering a product as sold, go ahead, prove it in court and sue away. However, if your goal is to set a precedent that people with disabilities are entitled to have the rest of us cater to their whim, well, then you can go get fucked.
 
canna said:
Thanks for proving my point. It's not that big of a difference at all. ADA laws SUPRRESS my private property rights for others benefits. The bottom line is you can't "help" someone by making a third and unrelated party pay for it and not harm said third party, either financially or otherwise. In terms of freedoms, Jim crow and segregation laws were wrong, and ADA laws are currently wrong. Laws are supposed to be used to uphold justice, not "help" the unfortunate at the expense of everyone else.

Now if you want to sue netflix for falsely advertising that they will have captions by X date, and then not delivering a product as sold, go ahead, prove it in court and sue away. However, if your goal is to set a precedent that people with disabilities are entitled to have the rest of us cater to their whim, well, then you can go get fucked.
Click to expand...

Have you actually read the ADA? Do you know it DOESN'T APPLY to everyone & everything, only certain things?
 
Robstar said:
Have you actually read the ADA? Do you know it DOESN'T APPLY to everyone & everything, only certain things?
Click to expand...

He doesn't care. He just wants to feed his persecution and big brother complexes.
 
Helicopter said:
Says the guy that's supporting suing a private company who's on-essential service doesn't have closed captions/subtitles :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Says the ill informed individual who doesn't even know the law.

The hilarious thing is, no matter what you guys bloviate about in this thread, you're still going to pay to make my life easier.
 
Fail said:
The hilarious thing is, no matter what you guys bloviate about in this thread, you're still going to pay to make my life easier.
Click to expand...
Just as you are paying to make my life easier. Who's paying for what has no relation to the argument whether or not Netflix should, by law, provide CC. Failing to recognize that would be indicative of a disability other than being hard of hearing.
 
I'm still confused as to what specific part of the ADA act Netflix is violating.

It's not a publicly accessable establishment. The definitions of who has to follow the ADA are very clear, and I don't see online service providers listed.
 
Thuleman said:
Just as you are paying to make my life easier. Who's paying for what has no relation to the argument whether or not Netflix should, by law, provide CC. Failing to recognize that would be indicative of a disability other than being hard of hearing.
Click to expand...

Irrelevant, you're still paying to make my life easier, any further argument is invalid and simply won't work because the end result will remain the same.
 
Fail said:
Says the ill informed individual who doesn't even know the law.

The hilarious thing is, no matter what you guys bloviate about in this thread, you're still going to pay to make my life easier.
Click to expand...

Sorry, I don't use Netflix, you can pay for your own. As I said before just because it's "the law" doesn't mean it isn't absurd. This is the kind of thing that makes people disgusted with the ADA.
 
Helicopter said:
Sorry, I don't use Netflix, you can pay for your own. As I said before just because it's "the law" doesn't mean it isn't absurd. This is the kind of thing that makes people disgusted with the ADA.
Click to expand...

Everyone else uses the law to fuck others over when it suits them, why should deaf people not be able to do the same thing?

Hypocrisy much?

I have no problem with making other people pay to make my life easier, I could care less what insults and whatnot you throw my way, because in the end, it makes no difference, you WILL pay for my life to be made easier.
 
Fail said:
Everyone else uses the law to fuck others over when it suits them, why should deaf people not be able to do the same thing?

Hypocrisy much?

I have no problem with making other people pay to make my life easier, I could care less what insults and whatnot you throw my way, because in the end, it makes no difference, you WILL pay for my life to be made easier.
Click to expand...

You attitude is pitiful. Typical entitlement mentality, wanting everyone else to pay his way because he is too weak to do it himself, your screen name is very appropriate. You can keep telling yourself that everyone will pay for you, and yea, I'm sure you'll leech off society, probably until the day you die without having an accomplishment, or success to your name other than leeching your way though life. Congratulations on being the poster child for why it's hard to get people to care about others.
 
Helicopter said:
You attitude is pitiful. Typical entitlement mentality, wanting everyone else to pay his way because he is too weak to do it himself, your screen name is very appropriate. You can keep telling yourself that everyone will pay for you, and yea, I'm sure you'll leech off society, probably until the day you die without having an accomplishment, or success to your name other than leeching your way though life. Congratulations on being the poster child for why it's hard to get people to care about others.
Click to expand...

Irrelevant, you will pay to make my life easier regardless of what you say.

Again, I could care less what you say, since you will end up doing what it is you don't want to regardless!

:)

Pro tip: Be happy.
 
Show me how it's illogical? You're still going to pay with your tax dollars to make my life easier whether you like it or not, it's a simple fact.
 
Fail said:
Show me how it's illogical? You're still going to pay with your tax dollars to make my life easier whether you like it or not, it's a simple fact.
Click to expand...

It lacks logic because it does not at all relate to the discussion whether Netflix is obligated under the law to provide CC.

Bringing tax dollars into this discussion was done by people who tried to deflect the issue. It's just as reasonable of me to say that my tax dollars are only spend on things that benefit me personally, there's no way to disprove that. In fact if anything I can conclusively prove that my tax dollars are guaranteed not spend on anything your life benefits from because I live in a state that receives a lot more federal funding than we pay in federal taxes. However, the whole tax dollar issue is 100% irrelevant to the Netflix issue.
 
Thuleman]Failing to recognize that would be indicative of a disability other than being hard of hearing.
Click to expand...

Does this really surprise you? Fail has no personal integrity whatsoever. It's pretty apparent with statements like below. I mean, I'd be pretty upset if I was just an embarrassing afterbirth as well, but I still wouldn't stoop to these levels:


Fail said:
I hope your kids get afflicted with disabilities, I wanna use a stopwatch to see how fast you change your tune.
Click to expand...


Fail said:
I have no problem with making other people pay to make my life easier.
Click to expand...


I'd like to repeat it a few times so it sinks in. Wishing misfortune on an innocent third party because someone disagrees with him on the Internet. What a fucking disgrace, I'd like to send a copy of this to his parents, I'm sure they'd be proud.


Fail said:
I hope your kids get afflicted with disabilities, I wanna use a stopwatch to see how fast you change your tune.
Click to expand...


Fail said:
I hope your kids get afflicted with disabilities, I wanna use a stopwatch to see how fast you change your tune.
Click to expand...


Fail said:
I hope your kids get afflicted with disabilities, I wanna use a stopwatch to see how fast you change your tune.
Click to expand...


Fail said:
I hope your kids get afflicted with disabilities
Click to expand...
 
You're still going to pay to make my life better, even if you never know what it's like to be deaf :D That won't change, pure and simple.

Keep ranting all you want about it, that won't change anything.
 
techrat said:
So, you want medal? Good for you. You still filed. Nothing forced you to accept the reward. Calling it 'forced' is quite disingenuous. You got screwed, you could have sued and instead you accepted entitlements from the government instead of damages from the doctor who fucked up.



http://hardforum.com/showpost.php?p=1037396856&postcount=9

Post number nine, first page in this thread. Mine.



And then there's post number 10: http://hardforum.com/showpost.php?p=1037396904&postcount=10

Also mine.



Your first post in this thread?

http://hardforum.com/showpost.php?p=1037400259&postcount=164

Number 164.

You would have known had you even bothered to read the first page of the comments, not the whole thread of 9 pages until you posted, JUST THE FIRST PAGE before responding.

Since the time they had promised captions for all streaming media by 2010, they raised the rates on ALL PLANS to include streaming costs.

Thus the lawsuit.

You would have known this had you even paid attention before looking for a reason to chime in about your superiority through suffering.
Click to expand...

The fact you told me to sue my doctor shows me, 100% that you have no real world experience...AT ALL. Try to sue a doctor. Go ahead. Tell me how well that works out for you.

Oh...but surely you know better than the four different lawyers I talked to about. I forgot I'm talking to Mr. Knowitall.

You have diarrhea of the mouth son.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top