[real-eyes] Re: FW: Netflix seeks permission to appeal order to comply with the ADA
- From: "Duyahn Walker" <themusicman1@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: <real-eyes@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2012 11:09:51 -0500
Saw your reply to Reggie. It seems though, I'm not the only one speaking to
Nintendo about this issue. I obviously won't know how many people but, that
doesn't matter.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mitchell D. Lynn" <mlynn@xxxxxxxxx>
To: <real-eyes@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, August 02, 2012 10:45 AM
Subject: [real-eyes] Re: FW: Netflix seeks permission to appeal order to
comply with the ADA
> See my response to Reggie as a response to your post as well.
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: real-eyes-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:real-eyes-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Duyahn Walker
> Sent: Wednesday, August 01, 2012 10:48 PM
> To: real-eyes@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [real-eyes] Re: FW: Netflix seeks permission to appeal order to
> comply with the ADA
>
> I respectfully disagree with you and NetFlix on this one and I don't even
> use the service. They need to make there services accessible for all.
> Whether you can hear, or not. I could say the same for other companies
> but, won't go there. Except to say, Nintendo needs to make there products
> accessible. Whether folks with visual impairments play video games or not.
> Ok. Rant over and opinion kindly stated.
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Mitchell D. Lynn" <mlynn@xxxxxxxxx>
> To: <real-eyes@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Wednesday, August 01, 2012 6:46 PM
> Subject: [real-eyes] Re: FW: Netflix seeks permission to appeal order to
> comply with the ADA
>
>
>> I'm with Netflix on this one. This is a subscription based service,
>> and if they want to alienate a segment of potential customers, then
>> that is their right. In the grand scheme of things, it's only
>> entertainment and of no real importance at all. We aren't talking
>> about employment opportunities, available and accessible
>> transportation, access to public buildings, fair housing, educational
>> opportunities etc. It's a service that some folks can't take full
>> advantage of. We need to get over this crap and focus on issues that do
>> have real impact on our lives.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: real-eyes-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> [mailto:real-eyes-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Reginald George
>> Sent: Wednesday, August 01, 2012 1:44 PM
>> To: real-eyes@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> Subject: [real-eyes] FW: Netflix seeks permission to appeal order to
>> comply with the ADA
>>
>> I told you guys this was huge before, and here’s more proof.
>> Reg
>> ) for your information:
>> The National Law Journal
>> July 31, 2012
>> Netflix seeks permission to appeal order to comply with ADA By Sheri
>> Qualters Netflix Inc. asked a federal judge in Massachusetts for
>> permission to appeal his ruling that the Americans with Disabilities
>> Act of 1990 requires the company to provide closed-captioning text for
>> its web-only streaming video.
>> Netflix filed a motion on July 27 asking U.S. District Judge Michael
>> Ponsor to amend his June 19 order denying Netflix's motion for
>> judgment on the pleadings and to certify an appeal to the U.S. Court
>> of Appeals for the First Circuit.
>> Ponsor, a senior judge in Springfield, Mass., issued the order in
>> National Association of the Deaf v. Netflix Inc. The organization,
>> along with a number of additional advocacy groups, sued Netflix in
>> June 2011 over its lack of closed-captioned text.
>> In its motion, Netflix called Ponsor's order "the broadest-ever
>> extension of the ADA's scope, thereby opening the door to amorphous
>> and seemingly limitless regulation of the Internet in a way Congress
>> did not envision and no other court has accepted."
>> The company added that Ponsor's ruling, the first applying the ADA to
>> streaming technology, conflicted with the Twenty-First Century
>> Communications and Video Accessibility Act of 2010. That law
>> established a regulatory scheme for closed-captioning on streaming video
>> content.
>> Ponsor's order "upends settled expectations in the streaming video
>> programming industry," the motion argued.
>> "In addition to these troubling consequences for Internet providers,
>> this ruling now opens this case to broad-ranging litigation into every
>> detail of, in particular, Netflix's streaming video business - from
>> the technology it invents to make streaming possible, to its
>> relationships with third parties in the complex supply-chain ranging
>> from upstream video content owners to downstream manufacturers of
>> end-user devices," Netflix's argued.
>> "Interlocutory review, to allow either confirmation or reversal of the
>> Court's decision by the First Circuit, would help settle many of the
>> questions raised by this case - not to mention reduce the spiraling
>> costs of this case, which, as Plaintiffs' recent filings make clear,
>> seeks to open Netflix's entire streaming business to scrutiny and
>> litigation," the company said.
>> Among the legal questions of first impressions the ruling raises,
>> Netflix argued, was whether ADA regulations governing places of "public"
>> accommodation cover the use of goods and services in private residences.
>> Others include whether the ADA should apply to the Internet or to
>> conduct governed by the Video Accessibility Act, and whether the scope
>> of that law applies to all video programming or only to types formerly
>> shown on television.
>> The plaintiffs will oppose the motion, said Catha Worthman, a partner
>> at Lewis Feinberg Lee Renaker & Jackson in Oakland, Calif. "We do not
>> believe that there are grounds for interlocutory appeal because as the
>> judge decided the issues, he did so in accord with clear First Circuit
>> law."
>> The plaintiffs "want to see this case resolved as quickly as possible,
>> and we believe that an appeal would cause unnecessary delay," she said.
>> Ponsor's order was a "very, very important decision that brings the
>> ADA into the 21st Century," said Arlene Mayerson, directing attorney
>> of the Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund Inc. in Berkeley,
>> Calif., which also represented the plaintiffs.
>> "As Main Street moves to the Internet, it's imperative that the ADA be
>> available for people with disabilities when they face discrimination,"
>> she said.
>> Sugarman, Rogers, Barshak & Cohen in Boston also represented the
>> plaintiffs, who include the Western Massachusetts Association of the
>> Deaf and Hearing Impaired and Lee Nettles, director of the Stavros
>> Center for Independent Living in Springfield.
>> Netflix's lawyers at Morrison & Foerster did not respond to requests
>> for comment. Netflix spokesman Jonathan Friedland said the motion was
>> self-explanatory and declined to comment further.
>> Sheri Qualters can be contacted at
>> squalters@xxxxxxx
>> <javascript:location.href='mailto:'+String.fromCharCode(115,113,117,97
>> ,108,1 16,101,114,115,64,97,108,109,46,99,111,109)+'?'> .
>> Source:
>> http://www.law.com/jsp/nlj/PubArticleNLJ.jsp?id02565125322&Netflix_se
>> eks
>> Ardis Bazyn
>> For inspirational speaking, business coaching, writing, or books:
>> www.bazyncommunications.com
>> Subscribe to my online newsletter
>>
>> To subscribe or to leave the list, or to set other subscription
>> options, go to www.freelists.org/list/real-eyes
>>
>>
>> To subscribe or to leave the list, or to set other subscription
>> options, go to www.freelists.org/list/real-eyes
>>
>>
>
> To subscribe or to leave the list, or to set other subscription options,
> go to www.freelists.org/list/real-eyes
>
>
> To subscribe or to leave the list, or to set other subscription options,
> go to www.freelists.org/list/real-eyes
>
>
To subscribe or to leave the list, or to set other subscription options, go to
www.freelists.org/list/real-eyes
Other related posts:
