WebAIM - Web Accessibility In Mind

E-mail List Archives

Re: NAD vs. Netflix ruling


From: Morin, Gary (NIH/OD) [E]
Date: Jun 28, 2012 8:47AM

Thank you! I thought it was me being daft - from what I understand from Deaf friends and colleagues, the 'demand' was for the streaming videos to show captions that already existed on the DVD themselves, that the complaint was why should they have to order the same video by mail that hearing persons could watch streaming online. This would be a matter of equality between streaming services and mail services.

If it's about captioning videos that weren't already captioned, that's a separate issue. This would be a Deaf/hearing equality issue.

Gary M

-----Original Message-----
From: Tony Olivero [mailto: <EMAIL REMOVED> ]
Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2012 2:52 PM
To: 'WebAIM Discussion List'
Subject: Re: [WebAIM] NAD vs. Netflix ruling

What I don't get about the copyright issue is if the DVD already contains the captioning, then Netflix only has to encode and display the captions.

Is the ruling requiring them to caption non captioned material? If not, I don't get the copyright argument.


-----Original Message-----
From: Ryan Hemphill [mailto: <EMAIL REMOVED> ]
Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2012 13:50
To: <EMAIL REMOVED> ; WebAIM Discussion List
Subject: Re: [WebAIM] NAD vs. Netflix ruling

I think there is an interesting irony here. In the movie industry, there is something that every movie has to include before they get started.
It's called a screenplay and surprise, surprise - the writing is all documented there. I think it would be interesting if someone started tackling accessibility at the source of the problem by grabbing the subtitles from the screenplays themselves - unless I'm missing something important here.