Comments on: Judge: Netflix can be sued for streaming uncaptioned films

By: Melvin H.

Melvin H. — Tue, 10 Jul 2012 03:20:40 +0000

Wait, couldn’t DMCA section 230 apply here, overriding the ADA claim? It might go something along this line: If Netflix can’t be held responsible, except under VERY narrow circumstances, for content put on its website–or in this case, movies streamed on its site–it should NOT be held responsible to put subtitles on the movies, as it is only a third-party to the streaming (it is providing the means to stream, not the movies themselves). With that, that might also solve the problems sites like Youtube or even Facebook might be facing with this ruling.

By: Hugo S. Cunningham

Hugo S. Cunningham — Mon, 09 Jul 2012 21:54:17 +0000

Might a reasonable compromise be:

Netflix will surcharge $1 (maximum) on each rental of a non-captioned film, to be held in account to pay for captioning of that film? It would be captioned only after enough rentals accumulate surcharges to pay for it.

Orphaned funds, for films with too few viewers, would *not* be paid out to disability lawyers or advocacy groups, eg in dubious class-action settlements. They would either be used to caption other films, or revert to the Library of Congress to make other materials available on the Internet.

By: Mike

Mike — Mon, 09 Jul 2012 17:21:09 +0000

I wouldn’t blame companies like Netflix to move their operations offshore, so they wouldn’t have to deal with ADA shakedown artists. Olson is right. It will be never ending. Next will be accommodations for blind people (descriptive narration). Then what? These companies will have no choice but to shutdown or move overseas.

By: Rich

Rich — Mon, 02 Jul 2012 12:38:02 +0000

Isn’t subtitling the content provider’s responsibility and exclusive right? Netflix is a transmission service. They don’t originate content. This is how the cable companies and to a lesser extent YouTube distance themselves from responsible for the content – because there is no way they reasonably can be responsible for it. It seems to me is this more about convenient targets and big pockets than justice. I also suspect it’s only effect will be the unintended one of restriction of available content. The greatest impact will be on indy films lacking the budget to caption up front. This raises the minimum cost of production and will probably eliminate a lot of specialized content.

By: Andrew

Andrew — Fri, 29 Jun 2012 17:38:10 +0000

Alternately, Stephen, you could provide a transcript of the content. It would benefit not only people who are Deaf/Hard of Hearing, but also people who have English as a second language; people who view your website at work, in a library, or some other location where they can’t/shouldn’t use audio; people who don’t have speakers on their computers for whatever reason (mine are broken); etc.

By: Eric Goldman on the Netflix decision - Overlawyered

Eric Goldman on the Netflix decision - Overlawyered — Thu, 28 Jun 2012 04:30:13 +0000

[…] up on our Monday posts: in an Ars Technica column, prominent Internet-law expert blogger and lawprof Eric Goldman […]

By: strech

strech — Wed, 27 Jun 2012 18:24:52 +0000

Hikaru: Having the DVD doesn’t mean they have the rights to stream the DVD; the streaming rights are entirely separate, so they may be separate data and copies of the movie. It’s entirely plausible that the version of the movie they have rights to stream has no captions, while the DVD version does.

Regardless of whether or not it’d be good for Netflix to caption the streams (it would, of course), the use of the ADA as a blunt instrument in this case is a terrible precedent (see Goldman’s article) given the expanded definition of public accommodation.

By: Stephen

Stephen — Wed, 27 Jun 2012 18:22:51 +0000

Welcome to the crazy world of intellectual property, Hikaru Katayamma. They may simply not have the rights. This rock/hard place combo could come up a lot of places on the internet, so try to think beyond Netflix to problems this can cause in the great public forum you and I are using right now.
Random example: What happens if I want to post clips of examples of racism from television on a website. I already would have to fend off lawsuits from content owners based using fair use arguments, would I also now need to secure and provide closed captioning for every clip?

By: Will the Americans with Disabilities Act tear a hole in Internet law? | Ars Technica

Wed, 27 Jun 2012 15:09:59 +0000

[…] from Overlawyered and Wendy Davis. Reader comments 121 ← Older Story Newer Story […]

By: Hikaru Katayamma

Hikaru Katayamma — Wed, 27 Jun 2012 00:55:01 +0000

Most of the videos I’m referring to are recent stuff, done in the last 5-10 years. Many of them I know have subtitles because when I watched them on the Netflix DVD, I could see the subtitles. It’s almost like they don’t want to go back to the old video’s they’ve already encoded and add the subtitles to them from the disk.

Then again, that’s pure speculation.