« Netflix CEO Reed Hastings Leaving Microsoft Board | Main | Netflix Windows 8 App Available Now »


Kayla Sonergoran

I just hope the cost isn't placed on us.

I do find it interesting how Netflix is heavily criticized when they have more captions than Amazon (which has none). You'd think they go after Amazon Instant Video rather than waste time with a company that actually is putting captions on their videos.


How wouldn't the cost be eventually passed on? We are the ones who ultimately pay Netflix bills, so in essence this was a money grab from the customers.


What was the big deal with captions? There's freeware that can rip subtitles. Also, if they had used simple formats like MP4 or AVI/Divx, they could've ripped the video & subtitles all @ once.


Of course the costs will get passed on to us. You don't expect Netflix to eat the cost do you?

Kayla Sonergoran

Actually, I think the people suing and having a hissy fit over this entire situation should pay the cost, not the customers.

In the end, it won't be competition that kills Netflix, it'll be the fed up customers who have to contend with price increases because of all the silly lawsuits.


This is absurd. Netflix is a subscription service that isn't government-run. Nobody is forced to join this luxury service and there are a huge number of reasonable alternatives (Buying the movie, Redbox, etc.). What the heck do these people do at actual movie theaters? Let the free market decide if they have subtitles and get the government out of our lives!


such bullshit

they were adding captions in good faith to begin with

it's ridiculous for a lawsuit like this to even take place


Another BS lawsuit, why don't they sue all the other VOD/PPV providers that don't have any CC?

To all the hard of hearing: I'm sorry you have a disability but if you don't like the streaming service Netflix provides then rent the DVD and get subtitles.


I love the geeks with their "It's easy to rip a video and stream it from my bedroom down to the basement with captions!"

Go out and create a streaming service to millions globally all the while needing to keep the greedy content providers happy by not using the most optimal technology. Then, when you figure out how to add captions to the tech that makes the content providers happy, someone sues you for not doing it fast enough.

Little geek fools who have never had to do something on a large scale thinking they know it all. Absolutely LOL.

The only winners in this suit are the lawyers, and to see it any other way it to be infinitely naive.


No they were not adding captions in good faith. They kept releasing tricking press releases with clever wording making you think that most of the content was captioned "80 percent of streamed hours..." imply 80 percent of the content available was captioned. Remember the first press release? "100 offers are captioned" They were all episodes of Lost so to say they were acting in good faith before and during the early days of the lawsuit is a bit of a stretch.
As for concerns of a price increase due to this. You do not need to be concerned, Netflix will be eligible for Tax Write offs and Tax Credits for any expenses it occurs making it's service ADA compliant.


apologies for the misspellings - stupid auto correct :)


"What the heck do these people do at actual movie theaters?"

Thankfully many theaters are making an effort to be ADA compliant. Do a simple Google search and you will know. I personally enjoy a captioned film at the theater at least once a week

Like DUDE!

What about like people who cannot like read and foreign films that do not offer an like an English dub? I mean dude what about these people too?


Why don't Deaf people just rent the DVDs?

A valid question, and as a Deaf person I would like to answer this. Streaming is the future and and I would like to continue to be able to enjoy the same movies and shows that my hearing counterparts can enjoy. Also with streaming you get to try out movies and if you don't like them you can just start streaming another movie or you can watch a ton of movies via streaming in a day, with DVD rentals you have to wait for them to get shipped etc. In addition there are some titles that are only available on the streaming service.


I see this as discrimination by the ADA if they don't go after all of the other streaming services as well. Netflix should counter sue for being singled out Ni an organization who is supposed to be set up to treat everyone equally.

Lost Respect

There is a point at which the requiring businesses to be ADA compliant is discrimination against people who do not have a disability.

In this case, it means that a movie or show must be subtitled or it is not allowed to be on NetFlix streaming, meaning people without disabilities are not given access to something they should rightfully have access.

Dont get me wrong Im all about providing access to those with disabilities, but it is getting to the point to where everything is catered to those with disabilities, creating a situation in which we need an organization to look out for those without disabilities.

Its also a likely cause of why so many people abuse disability government programs.

If you think about it everybody has a disability because we all perceive reality differently, and no company can accommodate to everyone's needs.

What people don't understand is "equally accessible to everyone" is technically impossible, because making it more accessible for one person reduces the accessibility for others.

If a company does not want to cater to those with disabilities, then people with disabilities should just not buy from them. Same as everyone else when they dont agree with a company.

I mean what about Music Artists? do they have to cater to Deaf people too now? Subtitled CD's?

this whole thing is ridiculous and has made me lose respect for butt-hurt deaf people.

The fact is you can never get the same experience watching a movie without sound, so you are still missing out, and if something is not available with subtitles, you will never know what you are missing.

and lastly, people can live without movies and live without access to everything, it is not necessary to life to be able to see every movie made.


The lack of empathy and intense level of unadulterated hatred is astounding here.

I have to sigh when people rail against the EPA. My dad has had moderate to severe asthma since he was 4. No fault of his own. During smog alerts he really can't go outside. When people talk about abolishing the EPA I tell my dad, you're gonna have to get put down soon. Same here. Hey Deaf people, go live on an island somewhere like lepers. People preach the golden rule but if it affects their entertainment budget to hell with it!


>To all the hard of hearing: I'm sorry you have a disability but if you don't like the streaming service Netflix provides then rent the DVD and get subtitles.

BTW, not all DVDs have subtitles either. (Most have the "line 21" captions even if they don't have subtitles.)

I think suing was going too far, but I'm glad that things will be captioned. I use captions on DVDs and my Tivos when walking on the treadmill often, and sometimes otherwise..


Good on you, Mek, for factually answering such vitriolic comments with calm, clarity, and reason. Your good nature shines through in all your posts.

And CordCutter, very aptly stated.


This is in regards to Lost Respects post, I can see where he is coming from but I also believe he does not have all the information (and in his defense not all the information can be found in this post)

There was never a danger of content being taken off of Netflix streaming just because it wasn't captioned or subtitled thus denying those who do not need it access to the content. If it truly was a financial hardship for them to stream the captioning content that in most cases are already available from the studios then all Netflix had to do was show that and they would have won. And you would still have your access. If you think about it Netflix was never sued for DVDs that did not have captions or subtitles. Everyone can still rent those DVDS however if Netflix were to have removed those subtitles before renting out the DVDs then you can bet your bottom dollar they would have been sued. If Netflix had no way to technically transmit the subtitles over the internet all they had to do was say that and the suit would have been tossed (of course they probably could not say that because they have just demonstrated it can be achieved)

Equally accessible to everyone, you are right that is impossible but there is no reason not to try, and when an unreasonable demand is made the company should fight it. This was not an unreasonable or financially unreasonable request. It does not appear that Netflix ever demonstrated that they could not afford to do this or it was technically not possible.

Providing access is not catering to people. Its allowing them to participate in society. I have a right to pay the money I earned to enjoy movie streaming along with everyone else. This does not take away from the non disabled people (for lack of a better term). Again I wish to stress that had this been not techinaclly feasible or would have resulted in increased fees, removal of content etc all Netflix had to do was demonstrate that.

I do not get the music artists argument since the vast majority of CDs I purchase have inserts with the lyrics and when I purchase music downloads a few clicks on the keyboard and I can find the lyrics.

(not related to the post form Lost Respect but I know the question will come up Why is this Deaf guy buying CDs??? It is a myth that most Deaf hear nothing in my case with my hearing aids I can hear pretty much all sounds provided they are a little louder But understanding words is very difficult so captions pretty much tell me what it was I heard)

Then we come to the end of Lost Respects post where he resorts to name calling

The stuff at the end of the post I am not even going to address as it was just mean spirited.

Finally let me conclude... while I am excited that I will have a chance to be a part of the millions who enjoy Netflix I know the lawyers are the ones that made money off of this and that just plain sucks! $755 thousand in Legal Fees? That is just plain ludicrous.


Libertarian worldview: believe that all government buildings should be accessible because “the government serves all people.”

However, they explicitly do not support universal disability access – not in the broad terms of such laws like Americans With Disabilities Act. This means that, should they be privatized, schools are not required to provide interpreters and/or wheelchair access. Restaurants don’t have to serve blind, deaf, or people in wheelchairs and can deny them if they want to. Companies don’t have to hire people with disabilities and it will be completely fine with the Libertarian Party.

You know what? This Libertarian will accept the settlement between NAD and Netflix on captioning timetable because it is between advocacy organization and private business. It can be argued that government had a role due to ADA. Netflix can resist and delay the outcome but it will look bad on their part. It is all about business ethics and consumers can vote with their money.

You can go to other streaming video service providers if you hate this decision by Netflix to settle the lawsuit. Bad news for anti-subtitle people because it will set the standard for the major providers of streaming video service.

At the end of the day, I won't lose any sleep over this lawsuit. I accept the result from the settlement.

Mr Nethead

"How wouldn't the cost be eventually passed on? We are the ones who ultimately pay Netflix bills, so in essence this was a money grab from the customers."

Those of us who are hard of hearing or deaf also help pay Netflix's bills. Now that more content is being captioned, Netflix might even see an influx of deaf/hard of hearing customers.

Those of you who still enjoy good hearing, consider yourselves blessed. However, in this modern era wherein noise pollution is so rampant, there's a pretty good chance that many of you will suffer from hearing loss someday. You'll probably be glad that you can still get on Netflix and enjoy movies.


I'd be happy to pay extra for captions on DVDs, as long as I get a discount on the one's that don't have em.


If you ask McDonalds to hold the onion/pickle on a burger do you expect a discount then shthar?


bad analogy CordCutter - If they raised the price of adding onion/pickle so bilimecs could also eat at McDonald's, then we'd like a discount if we don't want the pickle/onion.


No it's not. It's an added feature, just like an added ingredient... some would want. Some would not. You shouldn't expect to get a discount when you choose not to use a feature, just like you shouldn't expect a discount when you don't get an ingredient. If that's the case I want a discount for not using NF on a mobile device. I don't use a smartphone and don't think I should have to pay for those that do. I'm sure a lot of time, energy and payroll is dedicated to supporting those devices. I shouldn't have to subsidize that if I don't use it, no? I see no difference with close captioning.


Sure it is, but only under the actuality that it costs me more money. If they add cc and pass the costs on to me, then that is an added feature that I shouldn't have pay for. How about making it an added feature that those who wish to take advantage of can pay an extra few bucks per month to use - like the bluray add on. If they spend more time and money on CCs and are able to do it without raising costs to us, then all is good.


Once again... There is no need for Netflix to pass along the cost of this because of the tax write offs and tax credits Netflix can claim for providing captions. I really wish all the various articles and posts would point this out so people wouldn't have this understandable concern.


so, you are saying that absolutely, unequivocally 100% of the cost is erased by tax write-offs and credits?


If they can't then Netflix needs to fire the accounting department!

Remember in the early 90s when the cost of Television sets skyrocketed and cable programing tripled in price? No? Well that's because it didn't happen and that is when all TVs bigger then 13 inches were required to have captioning capabilities and the networks had to have increased captioning. Yet the imagined fear of increased costs being passed on never happened. It won't happen this time either.


So, you're saying you're not sure if 100% of the cost can be written off. That's fine.


See http://www.ada.gov/archive/taxpack.pdf for the availability of tax credits and tax deductions for businesses making accommodations under the Americans with Disabilities Act.

The tax credit is only available to "small" businesses -- either 30 employees or less or $1 million in revenues or less. Netflix would be excluded.

The tax deduction only applies to the removal of architectural or transportation barriers.

To the best of my knowledge Netflix cannot claim any special ADA-related tax deductions for the cost of adding subtitles to all of their streaming movies.


Whoa! You are right it does apply to small businesses. I cant believe I missed that very obvious fact I can't go back and correct my previous posts but please consider this my official retraction on that part.

I still feel Netflix should be in compliance with the ADA but I sincerely apologize for the misinformation and stand corrected. I know they can still deduct the cost of adding the captions since it is an expense they incur.


All these STUPID lawsuits just increase the cost of everything for the public.

The deaf dont deserve netflix with captions because they are deaf.

Mr. Nethead

Seriously people, how about a little compassion? You're all assuming the cost of our Netflix subscriptions will go up because they have to add captions. But if there was an increase at all, it would probably be tiny. I know $755,000 seems like a lot of money to most of us, but if they decided to pass those fees onto the customers, it would be a MINISCULE increase because there are MILLIONS of Netflix customers.

Now that they have the captioning infrastructure in place, it probably doesn't take a lot of time or effort to caption content at this point. Besides, Netflix has settled numerous other lawsuits over the past couple years. Why are you people putting up such a fuss about this one?

With so many people on this blog making cruel and spiteful comments toward the deaf and hard of hearing, I can't help but feel it is another indicator that America has lost her way. You people are belly-aching over the notion that your subscriptions could increase by a few pennies. (Even though they probably won't.) Those hypothetical extra pennies aren't going to break you. Is it not a small price to pay to help ensure a large segment of the population suffering from a disability can also enjoy the same content as you? You people are selfish, mean-spirited, and greedy. Shame on you.

Richard H Stanton.

This is seriously screwed up. I haven't seen subtitles on movies in the theater. I haven't seen braille on restaurant menus. What leg did this lawsuit have to stand on? If your hearing impaired and netflix doesn't support you why would you think you can force them to. I don't understand. I think netflix should work to help you but its up to them in the end and they shouldn't have to do anything they don't want to except pay into Obama care.


Okay Gran, so we're on the same page. I shouldn't have to pay for any support of handheld devices, PC or any of their other features NF provides that I don't use. If we cancel out all those things maybe my streaming sub will only be about 3 bucks a month!!!


Most of the theatre chains have some options for those with hearing loss. Those with a mild hearing loss can ask for special headsets. For those with a more severe hearing loss can go to screenings at special times for a movie where the subtitles are on the screen. Some chains have devices that you put in your cup holder and the captions are shown on a piece of plexi glass you position in front of you. Recently the Regal chain rolled out Access Glasses when you wear them in the thearte you can see the captions.

Braille is very rarely used these days. Most people with visual impairments have hand held readers that can be scanned over a regular menu. If they don't have one of those readers as long as the server is willing to give an idea of what is available then the restaurant has done it's part to be accessible.
I do not know all the facts of this case but I have been working in the field of disabilities long enough to know that if Netflix could not easily achieve this in terms of technology and finances (loss of profits, having to delete titles, charging increased fees) they would have won the lawsuit. I will not speculate as to why they settled the lawsuit but given how large of a company Netflix they certainly had the resources to fight this if they felt that providing captions was not readily achievable


I will not speculate as to why they settled the lawsuit but given how large of a company Netflix they certainly had the resources to fight this if they felt that providing captions was not readily achievable - Spot on EJK. Lets drag our feet on captions because we think our money is better spent on lobbyists to allow FB integration.


I'm diabetic. Should I sue Baskin Robin's for not offering every flavor in a "no sugar added" version?

The comments to this entry are closed.


Third-Party Netflix Sites