Not that Netflix should have to caption all content they provide, but that they should have to caption all ORIGINAL content they provide. Ie, that the responsibility to provide captions rests with the creator of content, not distributors. Otherwise you could sue Blockbuster (if they still existed) or Redbox, or any other distributor if they rented out content the creators hadn't captioned.

Instead of lawsuits, I think going to the ADA and have them negotiate with NETFLIX might have proved better even if it took sometime. Now I am sure NETFLIX is pissed and won't lift a finger for decades at least.

The ADA is enforced by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. The EEOC does not negotiate anything. If they think you have a case they bring a charge. From there it can be appealed into the court system. They are not set up to do things like negotiations.

The DoJ also has enforcement responsibilities with relation to the ADA, and they do have a mediation program for the purpose of resolving ADA violations without utilizing the courts. If those efforts fail, the DoJ can file suit on behalf of he aggrieved party.

I would be interested in finding out if the plaintiff in this case contacted the DoJ prior to filing the lawsuit.

The suit should have been against the creators. Netflix likely doens't, under copyright laws, have the right to do what it was being asked to do.

they do create subtitles for some territories where the distributor doesn't have them available, so why shouldn't they also create CC files?

but if they make exceptions in some territories, why shouldn't they be made to do it everywhere?

If they choose to do it, that's fine, I just don't think they should be mandated to do it.

Netflix isn't responsible, and can't be responsible, for the captioning of third-party content. Their own is a different issue, as you point out.

I had an online chat with a Roku rep about captioning.

I'm not deaf but I like captioning because actors speak
so fast and slurry these days.

The Roku guy said that they were working with Netflix
to caption as much as possible.

That was a few years ago, and over time I noticed a great
improvement.

All the Netflix originals I've watch have been captioned, and
I don't watch anything else that is not captioned unless I
absolutely need to see it.

Even public websites (and even government INTRANETS) are subject to Section 508 from the ADA!

No, I don't believe it does at the Netflix level. The creators of the content should be responsible for making the content accessible, not the entity that sells it.

doesn't back down easily....

Should YouTube caption everything they publish?

or private sector websites developed under contract for use by federal government entities. It doesn't apply to Netflix at all.

Section 508 for websites is like handicapped parking and curb cuts....Section 508 and the W3C rules apply to all public websites....and you can be sued if you don't. Target for example was sued because of it


http://www.cnet.com/news/target-settles-with-blind-patrons-over-site-accessibility/

Bruce Sexton, one of the original named plaintiffs who we talked to in February 2006, expressed frustration with the lack of alt-text on the site that screen-reading software detects in order to vocalize a description of an image. Without such features, the site violates federal and state laws that entitle the disabled equal access to business and government services, the lawsuit claimed.

Specifically, the settlement, filed in the U.S. District Court of Northern California, requires that blind guests using screen-reader software on Target.com "may acquire the same information and engage in the same transactions as are available to sighted guests with substantially equivalent ease of us." The NFB will certify the Target Web site through its Nonvisual Accessibility Web Certification program once the agreed upon improvements are completed in early 2009.

The case was won based on violations of the ADA, which falls under US Code 42. The ADA deals with the public accommodation of disabilities.

Section 508 falls under US Code 29, and is part of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973.

Plaintiffs in the case cited Section 508 as part of their arguments, as an example of what they wanted Target to do with their website. However, the court order was based on the ADA, which is unrelated to Section 508.

Additionally, the lawsuit against Target was based on the inability of the blind to use the website itself, not to the use of anything they bought on the website. The lawsuit against Netflix is the opposite - the plaintiff isn't claiming he can't use the website, he's claiming that he can't use something he buys from the website.

among many many others....You keep telling yourself that your websites are immune.....whatever gets you through the night....but if the National Federation of the Blind comes after them....you will see WHO this law covers...

By the way....are public companies REQUIRED to provide handicap parking? Where does that come from? The ADA....which Section 508 is part of!

I said that private sector websites don't fall under Section 508, as you claimed. They fall under the ADA, which is a completely separate law.

And again, you're wrong. Section 508 does not fall under the ADA.

Section508 Laws

In 1998, Congress amended the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 to require Federal agencies to make their electronic and information technology (EIT) accessible to people with disabilities. Inaccessible technology interferes with an ability to obtain and use information quickly and easily. Section 508 was enacted to eliminate barriers in information technology, open new opportunities for people with disabilities, and encourage development of technologies that will help achieve these goals. The law applies to all Federal agencies when they develop, procure, maintain, or use electronic and information technology. Under Section 508 (29 U.S.C. ‘794 d), agencies must give disabled employees and members of the public access to information that is comparable to access available to others. It is recommended that you review the laws and regulations listed below to further your understanding about Section 508 and how you can support implementation.

Following is the current text of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), including changes made by the ADA Amendments Act of 2008 (P.L. 110-325), which became effective on January 1, 2009. The ADA was originally enacted in public law format and later rearranged and published in the United States Code. The United States Code is divided into titles and chapters that classify laws according to their subject matter. Titles I, II, III, and V of the original law are codified in Title 42, chapter 126, of the United States Code beginning at section 12101. Title IV of the original law is codified in Title 47, chapter 5, of the United States Code. Since this codification resulted in changes in the numbering system, the Table of Contents provides the section numbers of the ADA as originally enacted in brackets after the codified section numbers and headings.

they are BUYING or in this case RENTING movies....on that website... you might want to read up..


http://www.section508.gov/summary-section508-standards

and

Federal accessibility laws outlined in the Americans with Disabilities Act historically pertain to wheelchair ramps, doors that open automatically and other features related to brick and mortar spaces. But since 2000, courts throughout the country have ruled that accessibility laws also pertain to a company’s website and have held companies financially liable for difficulties that disabled visitors experience online. Websites that don’t provide proper access to information for deaf or blind visitors, for instance, fall into this category.
http://thefinancialbrand.com/27448/could-your-banking-website-be-the-target-of-a-lawsuit/

The two examples you cited above are from two different laws. The first (508) does not apply to Target or Netflix websites, the second (ADA) does. However, the ADA applies to the accessibility of the website itself, not what is purchased.

Contrary to what you may read on the web, Section 508 does not directly apply to private sector websites or to public websites which are not U.S. federal agency websites. In fact it does not even apply to the Congress or to the Judiciary. It also does not (generally) apply to agencies or establishments using federal funds.

3) Who does Section 508 apply to?

Section 508 applies to Federal departments and agencies. It does not apply to recipients of Federal funds, and does not regulate the private sector. However, states which receive Federal funds under the Technology Related Assistance for Individuals with Disabilities Act of 1988, are required by that Act to comply with Section 508.

The scope of section 508 is limited to the Federal sector. It does not apply to the private sector, nor does it generally impose requirements on the recipients of Federal funds with the exception of activities carried out in a State under the Assistive Technology Act of 1998, as amended pursuant to section 4(d)(6)(G) of that act.

did I not?

Other online public retailers HAVE been successfully sued...

and I actually DO Section 508!

As I asked...then why are companies (even public ones) REQUIRED by numerous judges to provide curb cuts, ramps, and handicapped parking? Section 508 is exactly like those...


The National Association for the Deaf and the National Federation for the Blind (NFB) have a few recent victories. Mostly against giant firms like Hilton Worldwide, Schwab, Netflix, and Target have all settled when judges reject assertions that their websites are beyond the reach of the ADA. Ticketmaster, eBay, and Travelocity have worked with the NFB to make their sites better for the disabled. The ADA only applies to businesses with 15 or more employees.

There are nearly 10,000,000 visually impaired Americans. Roughly 1.5 million use assistive technologies, such as screen reader computer technology to access websites and communicate over the Internet. There are more than 50 screen reader software programs commonly used to help the disabled. This is a big group of people and they’re well organized with powerful trade groups.


http://www.dirigodev.com/blog/web-development-execution/website-ada-accessibility/

I'm kind of surprised that you claimed that Section 508 is part of the ADA.

Regardless, I've not argued that private sector websites don't have to be accessible - they do. However, making the website accessible is far different than making the items purchased from the website accessible.

Let's form an analogy between website accessibility and physical accessibility.

Target must provide curb cuts, handicapped parking spaces, and aisles wide enough for wheelchairs in order to provide accessibility for physically disabled shoppers. However, there is no requirement that everything they sell in the store must be usable by the physically disabled. If that were the case, they wouldn't be able to sell bicycles, hula hoops and Slip n Slides. The ADA requires that they make their store (and their website) accessible to the disabled, but it does not require that they limit their inventory to only those items usable by the disabled.

By the same token, Netflix is required under the ADA (not Section 508) to make their website accessible to the disabled, but there is no requirement that everything they sell/rent must be usable by the disabled.

The ADA governs websites as an instrumentality of commerce just as it governs brick and mortar stores.

It does not govern the goods sold by the store.

It's not broadcast TV. It's no different than renting a movie. And just how would a service like Pandora comply with this?

Though not a brick and mortar store, I believe that Netflix should have to make it's website accessible to the disabled, to the greatest extent that it can. However, I don't agree that they should be held responsible for the accessibility of the content.

Netflix doesn't create the content.

What about old classic movies from pre-captioning days?