Netflix Violates the Americans with Disabilities Act by Not Providing captions

[aGameOfThrones]

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 ofMassachusetts, Western Division in Springfield, MA. The lawsuit charges the entertainment giant with violating theAmericans with Disabilities Act (ADA) by failing to provide closed captioning for most of its “ Watch Instantly”movies and television streamed on the Internet. The New York Times has described Netflix as the “ only major player in the online-only video subscription business. ” Netflix has over 60% of the streamed video services market share. An estimated 36 million Americans are deaf or hard of hearing.

The deaf and hard of hearing community hasrepeatedly expressed concerns — via letters, petitions, blogs, and social media — to Netflix about its failure to provide equal access to “ Watch Instantly.” “ We have tried for years to persuade Netflix to do the right thing and provide equal access to all content across all platforms. They chose not to serve our community on an equal basis; we must have equal access to the biggestprovider of streamed entertainment.

As Netflix itself acknowledges, streamed video is the future and we must not beleft out,,”said NAD President Bobbie Beth Scoggins. “ There is no excuse for Netflix to fail to provide captions so that deaf and hard of hearing customers have access to the same movies and TV shows as everyone else, ”stated Arlene Mayerson, Directing Attorney of the Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund. “ Netflix admits that there is no technological issue. For people who are deaf and hard of hearing, captions are like ramps for people who use wheelchairs.

www.nad.org/news/2011/6/nad-files-disability-civil-rights-lawsuit-against-netflix

**********************


It's been a slow climb since Netflix first announced it was adding closed captioning to the PC and Mac in early 2010, but today's blog post indicates its reached 30% of the available titles. So far platforms on the second revision of its streaming frontend like the PS3, Boxee Box, Google TV and Nintendo Wii support optional captions while the Xbox 360 and Roku players should "later this year." Of course, while its per-episode count is significantly higher, it's still only a few hundred ofNetflix's available series, and deaf/hard of hearing users face problems like having some episodes subbed while others aren't. Netflix's new page breaking out supported titles should help, while nc-mac-asl's blog or InstantWatcher.com also can provide a filter. The plan is apparently to have subtitles on 80% of content bythe end of the year and here's hoping it gets to 100% soon.

www.engadget.com/2011/02/25/netflix-30-percent-of-watch-instantly-titles-subbed-with-more-o/?m=false

[LibertyEagle]

Oh, sheesh. (shakes head). That's the ticket. Let's put more requirements on one of the few remaining successful U.S. companies.

[squarepusher]

terrorists! don't mess with my netflix!

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

If I have to watch marquees scroll across my screen while Bear Grylls drinks his own piss...you don't even...no..no..just no you don't want to know.

[BamaAla]

What a crock of shit.

[aGameOfThrones]

I can't even use "watch instantly" (on account of movie licensing agreements) in puerto Rico. But you can if you use a VPN to bypass that restriction.

[Icymudpuppy]

While I disagree with the use of government force, I do appreciate closed captions. Between growing up on a farm with lots of heavy machinery, 10 years in the Army as a tanker, and the constant distraction of loud family members, I need closed captioning to hear anything. Add into that the fact that Netflix streaming is always very low volume, such that if I have the TV at a comfortable level for the Wii main menu, I have to crank it up at least three times that setting to get the same volume from the streamed movies.

[Reason]

Deaf culture is very angry with society, it does not surprise me that they would resort to statism to initiate force to get what they want.

[Vessol]

If I have to watch marquees scroll across my screen while Bear Grylls drinks his own piss...you don't even...no..no..just no you don't want to know.

http://s3.amazonaws.com/kym-assets/photos/images/original/000/071/031/00.jpg?1284071223

[thehungarian]

What a bunch of needy bastards.

[BuddyRey]

Accommodation for hearing-impaired individuals could be achieved via market forces quite easily. KramerDSP makes RP videos with closed captioning all the time, with no government force.

[squarepusher]

http://s3.amazonaws.com/kym-assets/photos/images/original/000/071/031/00.jpg?1284071223

:d:d:d

[libertybrewcity]

hahhaha
http://www.2flashgames.com/2fgkjn134kjlh1cfn81vc34/flash/f-i-lold-7020.jpg
http://greginthedesert.net/files/page0_blog_entry1084_1.jpg

[2young2vote]

We need closed captioning during government speeches

"I love America and respect our constitution."
"KAAAALLLLLLL. HOOSH HOOSH HOOSH HOOSH."

[KramerDSP]

Accommodation for hearing-impaired individuals could be achieved via market forces quite easily. KramerDSP makes RP videos with closed captioning all the time, with no government force.

To add to that, this Netflix thing has been boiling over for several years now. As a Ron Paul supporter, my response was simply to boycott NetFlix after expressing my opinions with a represenative. I just stopped becoming a member and giving them my money. My argument to the Deaf community is that using force usually just leads to resentment (i.e., the annoyance from the first five or so posters in this threade). It's better to convince the business or people in question that it makes good business sense to increase accessibility and that even the elderly and little children can benefit from captioning/subtitles. I was able to encourage AdamT to add captions and subs to the recut of "For Liberty", and he and Chris went through it and got that completed.

NetFlix is coming our way (http://www.deaftechnews.com/2011/01/25/netflixs-streaming-service-and-closed-captions/) (But 12 years to get to 100% (http://www.hardocp.com/news/2011/02/27/netflix_supports_closed_captions_on_streaming_medi a) is pretty far off), so I was dissapointed to see that the NDA decided to file a lawsuit against them.

[Rothbardian Girl]

Lol, I am actually hearing disabled, so I do appreciate closed captioning. I don't think anyone should be forced to provide them, though. There are plenty of avenues for me and other disabled people to enjoy movies with captioning. Just rent the DVD, for God's sakes. I think deaf and hard-of-hearing consumers should have every right to petition the company for that opportunity, but taking them to court over it? No thanks.


Deaf culture is very angry with society, it does not surprise me that they would resort to statism to initiate force to get what they want.
Actually, I think the "anger" (I would more accurately characterize it as frustration/feelings of isolation) is more directed at the fact that deafness/hearing disabilities essentially shut a person off from other people, who may not have any patience in dealing with someone who has a hearing disability. I understand that most people don't want to have to repeat everything two or three times, but it can seriously upset a hard-of-hearing person to be snapped at/treated with disrespect over something that he or she can't change. I personally don't approve of statism in any form, so to paint deaf or hard-of-hearing people with the same brush is insanity. I would even venture that hard-of-hearing people are more inclined towards individualism just because of the rejection from society that many of them feel. In short, I think there are other factors in play regarding their tendencies towards statism than their hearing disabilities.

This is a pretty interesting topic, by the way. I didn't realize so many people had such strong or, frankly, misguided opinions towards the disabled.


It's better to convince the business or people in question that it makes good business sense to increase accessibility and that even the elderly and little children can benefit from captioning/subtitles. I was able to encourage AdamT to add captions and subs to the recut of "For Liberty", and he and Chris went through it and got that completed.
This is more of the type of advocacy that I would favor, for one. Simple petitioning would probably do wonders. I really can't see how there would be a ton of extra costs involved in making sure that features were captioned - I think it's simply a matter of people not realizing how far captions go in enhancing a deaf or hard-of-hearing person's enjoyment.

[RonPaulCult]

What law are they violating? Streaming videos didn't exist when that law was passed.

[KramerDSP]

Rothbardian Girl, you misquoted me. I never said "Deaf Culture is angry at society". That was another poster. But I agree with a lot of what you said.

[angelatc]

It will be interesting. There's certainly at least one other major player - AMazon has a big streaming video library too. And when the internet first started, there were lawsuits about requiring all websites to be compatible with disabilities, meaning that all video be subtitled and audio content be available for the blind...those went down in defeat.

Plus, I think a majority of the movies have subtitles on the disc, don't they?

[aGameOfThrones]

NetFlix is coming our way (http://www.deaftechnews.com/2011/01/25/netflixs-streaming-service-and-closed-captions/) (But 12 years to get to 100% (http://www.hardocp.com/news/2011/02/27/netflix_supports_closed_captions_on_streaming_medi a) is pretty far off), so I was dissapointed to see that the NDA decided to file a lawsuit against them.

they haven't had online streaming for 12 years.

[RonPaulGetsIt]

Shrink the stupidness out of government already.

Is there a limit to this nonsense?

[angelatc]

they haven't had online streaming for 12 years.

Not what he was saying. If you click the link, it says "Chapman determined that it would take until November 17, 2023 to have all streaming content captioned at Netflix's current rate."

[aGameOfThrones]

Not what he was saying. If you click the link, it says "Chapman determined that it would take until November 17, 2023 to have all streaming content captioned at Netflix's current rate."


Thanks. The entire DVD collection, damn! The current online library will be captioned mostly by the end of this year.

[runningdiz]

This thread reminds me of this cool video


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OCnYISJ2rQo

[KramerDSP]

LOL. That's me from 4 years ago :) I haven't seen this in a while!

[MelissaWV]

I don't understand why NetFlix would be liable for the DVD portion of its business at all. It functions as a distributor of DVDs that, mostly, already have closed captioning included. If they don't, then how would NetFlix go in and alter those DVDs?

Now, the streaming side... well, I guess I see both sides of it. I wonder why it is that the hearing impaired get such preference, though? The visually impaired have a hell of a time getting assistive literature to go with movies. It is more expensive and time consuming to provide that sort of thing, which a blindguy could read via Braille Note during a movie, than CC. That's never stopped the Government before, though!

Slight tangent: CC is terrible. I don't mean it's bad to have it, but that it is so poorly done that it makes me cringe. I cut them a little slack on live events, but transcription on DVDs and mass-market movies that have been out for ages should actually have the words match up with what the actors are saying.

[angelatc]

LOL. That's me from 4 years ago :) I haven't seen this in a while!

That's the picture of you I have in my head.

[KramerDSP]

That's the picture of you I have in my head.

And your avatar is the picture of you I have in my head! LOL!

[KramerDSP]

Melissa, I have to agree with you. The hearing impaired tend to get more preferences over the visually impaired for some reason. Maybe their lobbying groups are stronger? It's possible that because the hearing impaired communities are so closely tight-knit that there is more activism going on for pet causes relevant to the entire community, whereas visually impaired folks don't seem to bunch up as much because there aren't language barriers in place. And yeah, captions out there SHOULD match up with what the actors are saying!

[Rothbardian Girl]

Melissa, I have to agree with you. The hearing impaired tend to get more preferences over the visually impaired for some reason. Maybe their lobbying groups are stronger? It's possible that because the hearing impaired communities are so closely tight-knit that there is more activism going on for pet causes relevant to the entire community, whereas visually impaired folks don't seem to bunch up as much because there aren't language barriers in place. And yeah, captions out there SHOULD match up with what the actors are saying!

Maybe it's because hearing-impaired people are relatively few and far between in comparison to visually-impaired people, so they would naturally be more close-knit - I mean, a lot of people do have glasses. Not sure on the deaf vs. blind statistics though. I also definitely agree on the point about existing problems with captions, lol - I get so frustrated at taped shows that don't have accurate captions. I hate having to play catch-up.

[Matthew Zak]

This is the type of shit that stifles competition. Let a competitor appeal to the hearing impaired.

[forgueam]

These good intentions brought to you by the National Association of the Deaf, your government-sanctioned bullies.

But don't forget folks, it's this darned "free market" of ours that is causing all these problems.

[LibertyRevolution]

If netflix doesn't want to offer closed captioning, they shouldn't have to.
I am against all laws that force private business to give any special treatment to disabled people.

Ok so your deaf, and you want to watch netflix. Well they don't offer closed captioning.
What gives you the right to force them to provide you closed captioning?
You suddenly have the right to force others to treat you special, provide you with extra services, just because you are deaf?
I say sorry for you, life doesn't come with subtitles, so why should netflix have to.

Laws like this are why there is braille on dunkin doughnuts drive-thru menu here... I mean seriously...

[Imaginos]

Government should protect us stricter.
Also I call to arrest everyone who are good looking since they are hurting feelings of not so handsome people.
Everyone should spy on everyone since we are so helpless and cannot make any sensible decision to take care of ourselves.
Please government, I kneel down before you and begging you.
Protect us.
Protect us from ourselves!
Please save us!

[headhawg7]

I am glad they added the captions. I have a subscription to netflix and found it hard to understand some of the movies coming out of Australia and other english speaking countries where accents make it hard to understand the movies. I think they would have added the captions no matter what as I sent emails requesting it and received a reply that they were working on it and this was a year and a half ago. However I do not think they should be forced by law. It would have happened on its own regardless.

[affa]

Accommodation for hearing-impaired individuals could be achieved via market forces quite easily.

Wouldn't we... well, have it already, then?

[KramerDSP]

Wouldn't we... well, have it already, then?

+1, although this in relation to streaming content. Netflix is trying to change the system so that almost everything is streaming content a few years from now. This way, they save a lot on mailing costs. The outroar from the Deaf community was not that the DVD's sent in the mail were not captioned. It was that the streaming content was not captioned. It was that Netflix changed the pricing plans so that those who signed up for the streaming content pay less than those who choose to have the DVD's in the mail.

Another example is the iTunes library, which has tens of thousands of movies. Only 200 or so (maybe 300) are captioned. Market forces haven't done shit. Same with Amazon on demand (nothing is captioned streaming wise). I do think the captioning changes would have happened anyway over time, and disagree with the use of government force, but there wasn't going to be a company called DeafFlix that would have provided tens of thousands of captioned movies in their database through streaming content. The cop out that Netflix and iTunes use is that the studios should be responsible for providing the captioning through streaming technologies, not the distributors such as themselves. It makes sense, but they each recieved many complaints from various people and could have used their leverage a bit more to tell the studios "look, you need to be captioning the streaming content that we provide".

By the way, the National Association for the Deaf are not "government sanctioned bullies". They're not an organization propped by our tax dollars, unless I am mistaken. They may be misguided in trying to correct a lack of accessibility issue by using government force as opposed to attempting to reason further with the companies providing streaming content, but it's not like the Obama administration is calling them and cackling while saying "Sic Netflix! Bwahaha! Sue their ass!".