You are technically correct - the best kind of correct! (Futurama quote, meaning I appreciate your correction.)
It’s probably not an issue for a station that simply doesn’t have that level of captioning, yet.
But I take your point - it would likely be a violation if they had that captioning and tried to monetize it. (In my substantially professionally trained but still non-expert opinion.)
So why does that apply to OTA, but not their website or other delivery methods…?
Your “laws” seem to have lots of exceptions when you need them to. But also, not surprisingly, very easy to find the flaws since they don’t exist and you’re not smart enough to think of these yourself apparently….
Once an organization can no longer claim an accessibility accomodation is an undue burden, then various laws kick in dictating how that accessibility accomodation must be managed.
As was pointed out, many radio stations do provide captions, and in doing so, fall under the same laws about how they managed those captions.
Spotify is also a big enough organization that any claim of “undo burden” would probably not hold up in court, anyway.
While a small local radio station might well be protected, and is a good example of why such exceptions exist.
Once an organization can no longer claim an accessibility accomodation is an undue burden, then various laws kick in dictating how that accessibility accomodation must be managed.
What…? The laws applies to everyone, you can’t just claim I can’t afford it. Got a source please?
As was pointed out, many radio stations do provide captions, and in doing so, fall under the same laws about how they managed those captions.
Where was this pointed out? Most don’t, and the few that do just link to other places, something Spotify could do to with what you’re claiming. Why do they need to provide the actual words when radios don’t? Another source on this would be great. You’re already saying the laws apply differently, but are the same? You’ve contradicted yourself multiple times already….
Spotify is also a big enough organization that any claim of “undue burden” would probably not hold up in court, anyway.
Source that’s a thing.
While a small local radio station might well be protected, and is a good example of why such exceptions exist.
So I can just claim I don’t make enough and not need to follow any ADA laws? That doesn’t sound right, even non-profits get riddled with ads claims, so again, source please!
We all know you’re talking out of your ass, so yeah I don’t expect any actual response, so enjoy your weekend troll!
I have, it doesn’t say what you’re claiming, so please, provide the links since I can’t find it. Or the more likely answer, it doesn’t exist and now you’re insulting me since I’ve called out your lack of actual education. You can’t just make a claim and not provide a source lmfao, that’s trolling.
It’s always funny when a phony tries to play big leagues when actual people with education are already available.
Some do. It’s pretty rare, but stations that are more talk-show or interview style shows might have transcripts on their site afterwards. (The Final Straw Radio, my beloved)
Music stations? Probably not. At least I’m not aware of any that do. But I also don’t like hearing the disk jockey chat between music so I don’t listen to that type of radio ever.
Providing a substantially inferior outcome to someone with an ADA need absolutely violates ADA rules.
When stuff like this has gone to court it hasn’t been pretty for the offending organization.
There’s a bigger question about how much of what Spotify currently provides falls under ADA. Web services used to get a free pass. They largely don’t anymore.
Source: some of this stuff is my problem, professionally. And no, I’m not going to look up a primary source for anyone. That’s Spotify’s lawyers job.
You obviously don’t give a shit, dude, I don’t know why it matters to you so much that people want their lyrics back. Do you own stock in Spotify or something?
I never said it was. I said that the requirement is the same whether it’s a free account or a paid one. It’s either always required or it’s never required, but it sure as Hell is not “their prerogative” based on how much they get paid.
Think about it for a second: what the parent commenter is suggesting is that it’s somehow okay for a company to use compliance with legal requirements as an upselling opportunity! You do see the problem with that line of thinking, right?!
What’s relevant is that the commenter I replied to suggested that it’s Spotify’s “prerogative” whether to comply with the law or not. It isn’t.
This issue here is people spouting dangerous late-stage-capitalist nonsense, not the content of the ADA rule. Your demand is actually just a derailment tactic.
The person agreeing with you has literally said they can claim they don’t make enough and not need to comply with ADA laws…. Apparantly…. So yeah they can just choose to not comply. This is from someone working directly with them, so we have to accept this is true I guess.
Oh, so not charging money magically exempts companies from meeting ADA accessibility requirements for their public accommodations?
Do radio stations provide lyrics?
The fact that they’re unable to provide lyrics gives radio stations a free pass on this, under ADA (and most similar laws).
deleted by creator
You are technically correct - the best kind of correct! (Futurama quote, meaning I appreciate your correction.)
It’s probably not an issue for a station that simply doesn’t have that level of captioning, yet.
But I take your point - it would likely be a violation if they had that captioning and tried to monetize it. (In my substantially professionally trained but still non-expert opinion.)
So why does that apply to OTA, but not their website or other delivery methods…?
Your “laws” seem to have lots of exceptions when you need them to. But also, not surprisingly, very easy to find the flaws since they don’t exist and you’re not smart enough to think of these yourself apparently….
Let it be known that I am a generous and benevolent ruler.
As an actual subject matter expert sharing some perspective, I just want you to know:
You can go fuck yourself.
You’re not sharing a perspective when you’re just talking out of your ass and not supporting anything you’ve claimed.
They can provide lyrics, most have websites, they can print a pamphlet, that’s just excuses to justify crying out against one and not the other.
What makes them unable to, but Spotify able to?
Once an organization can no longer claim an accessibility accomodation is an undue burden, then various laws kick in dictating how that accessibility accomodation must be managed.
As was pointed out, many radio stations do provide captions, and in doing so, fall under the same laws about how they managed those captions.
Spotify is also a big enough organization that any claim of “undo burden” would probably not hold up in court, anyway.
While a small local radio station might well be protected, and is a good example of why such exceptions exist.
What…? The laws applies to everyone, you can’t just claim I can’t afford it. Got a source please?
Where was this pointed out? Most don’t, and the few that do just link to other places, something Spotify could do to with what you’re claiming. Why do they need to provide the actual words when radios don’t? Another source on this would be great. You’re already saying the laws apply differently, but are the same? You’ve contradicted yourself multiple times already….
Source that’s a thing.
So I can just claim I don’t make enough and not need to follow any ADA laws? That doesn’t sound right, even non-profits get riddled with ads claims, so again, source please!
We all know you’re talking out of your ass, so yeah I don’t expect any actual response, so enjoy your weekend troll!
Just go look up the law, asshole. I don’t like you enough to help you.
I have, it doesn’t say what you’re claiming, so please, provide the links since I can’t find it. Or the more likely answer, it doesn’t exist and now you’re insulting me since I’ve called out your lack of actual education. You can’t just make a claim and not provide a source lmfao, that’s trolling.
It’s always funny when a phony tries to play big leagues when actual people with education are already available.
Of course they don’t.
But they’re going to pretend that its on you to disprove the claim.
Some do. It’s pretty rare, but stations that are more talk-show or interview style shows might have transcripts on their site afterwards. (The Final Straw Radio, my beloved)
Music stations? Probably not. At least I’m not aware of any that do. But I also don’t like hearing the disk jockey chat between music so I don’t listen to that type of radio ever.
Most just provide links to other places actually if they do, the point is, it’s nothing to do with ADA and if it was, radio would be required to too.
Source that providing lyrics to songs is a requirement?
Providing a substantially inferior outcome to someone with an ADA need absolutely violates ADA rules.
When stuff like this has gone to court it hasn’t been pretty for the offending organization.
There’s a bigger question about how much of what Spotify currently provides falls under ADA. Web services used to get a free pass. They largely don’t anymore.
Source: some of this stuff is my problem, professionally. And no, I’m not going to look up a primary source for anyone. That’s Spotify’s lawyers job.
So no, just talking out of your ass then.
You can Google the lyrics to songs on any device you can view them on Spotify.
While I make it a personal policy to talk out of my ass as much as possible, in this case I just don’t like you enough to help you.
Help me do what, exactly?
If you could google the subtitles to any film or tv show, should that absolve Netflix of the responsibility to provide them?
Do lyrics fall under the same regulation as subtitles? If Netflix were free, would it still be subject to those requirements?
Perhaps they should. Let’s join hands, friend. I believe we can change things for the better.
So you don’t know. Got it.
You obviously don’t give a shit, dude, I don’t know why it matters to you so much that people want their lyrics back. Do you own stock in Spotify or something?
I never said it was. I said that the requirement is the same whether it’s a free account or a paid one. It’s either always required or it’s never required, but it sure as Hell is not “their prerogative” based on how much they get paid.
Think about it for a second: what the parent commenter is suggesting is that it’s somehow okay for a company to use compliance with legal requirements as an upselling opportunity! You do see the problem with that line of thinking, right?!
Which is completely irrelevant if its not actually a requirement. So I’m asking you to prove that it is.
What’s relevant is that the commenter I replied to suggested that it’s Spotify’s “prerogative” whether to comply with the law or not. It isn’t.
This issue here is people spouting dangerous late-stage-capitalist nonsense, not the content of the ADA rule. Your demand is actually just a derailment tactic.
The person agreeing with you has literally said they can claim they don’t make enough and not need to comply with ADA laws…. Apparantly…. So yeah they can just choose to not comply. This is from someone working directly with them, so we have to accept this is true I guess.
No they did not. You brought up the law.