You're viewing part of a thread.
Much like many disabilities, deafness isn't a hard binary between hearing Vs deaf, but a spectrum dependent on many factors. For example, someone may have hearing loss in a particular frequency range, which may affect their ability to hear lyrics. I would also expect that someone's relationship to music may be impacted by whether they were born deaf or acquired deafness later in life.
The point that other are making about this as an accessibility problem is that a lot of disability or anti-discrimination has provisions for rules or policies that are, in and of themselves, neutral, but affect disabled people (or other groups protected under equality legislation) to a greater degree than people without that trait. In the UK, for example, it might be considered "indirect discrimination".
You might not need lyrics to listen to music, but someone who is deaf or hard of hearing is likely going to experience and enjoy music differently to you, so it may well be necessary for them.
I don’t even know the lyrics to some of my favorite songs. I think the whole complaining about unlimited, free lyrics is ridiculous. Spotify isn’t a charity and just because someone can’t enjoy music as much due to not reading lyrics isn’t an accessibility thing.
Guess Spotify should just get rid of the free tier and then this wouldn’t even be an issue.
Okay, well get back to me when you have some lived experience of deafness and maybe we can have a productive discussion then, seeing as my point seems to have gone completely over your head.
Should my free local newspaper also include everything in braille?
If this were doable...
.
.
Shouldn't they, though?
Like, here's your 5 stacks of normal newspapers, here's your 1 stack of braille newspapers. Take your pick.
Listen, I don't want to be in a pointless internet argument; I could answer your question by referencing some of the things that go into deciding what reasonable adjustments should be put in place, legally speaking (in particular, your question is getting at the "how much is reasonable" aspect of the problem"), but I only want to engage in this conversation if you're actually interested to learn.
(On that front, I apologise for the sharp tone of my previous comment, because that certainly wasn't conducive to conversation.)
Legally speaking, the ADA promotes accessibility in public accommodations, but it does not require music streaming services to provide lyrics. There is no legal precedent requiring these services.
Additionally, the service in question is free. Do any music streaming services provide both lyrics and music for free? While I don't particularly favor Spotify, this argument doesn't relate to any legal obligation on their part.
There is no legal precedent requiring these services.
There is legal precedent for requiring captioning where I’m from and probably in the US as well. Practically every form of broadcasted video (and at least here, it is required of websites with video) has a legal requirement to provide captions. I don’t see how it would be difficult to apply that to music.
It being available on the free tier has almost no relevance to Spotify being a profit making entity that has to comply with the law. I’d be surprised if they don’t get in trouble for it legally. As pointed out elsewhere it’s paywalling an accessibility feature. Which seems like a great way to draw enough eyeballs to your bullshit and get legislation changes; assuming it doesn’t already violate it.
Yes in the USA there are laws that require CC on programs being televised, but not all. Interestingly enough, one of the TV exemptions is programs that are mostly musical.
After doing a bit of research now I can see your point and I agree with you that this could set up a legal situation like it did back in the 90s. I wouldn’t mind if they revisited the 1996 Telecommunications Act so they could break up the radio monopoly here, but I digress.
one of the TV exemptions is programs that are mostly musical.
Even being hearing impaired, I gotta be honest, the irony is kinda funny. Glad to hear it! I was concerned that people in this thread advocating for it would seem like they're coming from a place of entitlement so I hoped bringing the caption side of it would highlight otherwise. I agree! Hopefully they do at some point but slow progress for stuff like that.
I’ve never seen closed captioning for music in shows, it’s literally just music signs. So obviously they aren’t the same and you’re talking out of your ass like the other user…..
So what precedent? Your precedent that you are claiming, shows that it’s okay to not CC music lyrics…. Jeeez shot your own fucking foot with this silly pout didn’t you…?
Jeeez shot your own fucking foot with this silly pout didn’t you…?
Honestly, this caught me so off guard it made me laugh. Not even the guy I was disagreeing with came at like that?? The point was caption/transcription/lyrics are essentially synonymous, all are transcribing some other medium to text for the point of being read. So my point that there is precedent (CC on television being required legally) still stands.
It does shit me that older programs they could/can just put the treble clef symbol for music as you mentioned though.
It does shit me that older programs they could/can just put the treble clef symbol for music as you mentioned though.
Old…? That’s the point dude, they still do it since there is no requirement (even in fucking tv) to cc music. Wow…. Music has NEVER EVER FUCKING BEEN CLOSED CAPTIONED.
Lmfao.
There is zero precedent and your point is just wrong, your example they don’t even CC the music in it… so how is it precedent for it on radio. Fucking yeesh. Your example actually proves there is absolutely zero precedent on anything for music closed captioning…. Hence shooting your fucking foot with your own point… can you comprehend that now? Or does it need to be explained even more simply for you……?
Songs are captioned in TV though and I see them include lyrics (when no characters are speaking) or a song title. As the other poster mentioned though it is exemption to current law. Which is beside the point. I’ve also never claimed music was captioned. That is the point of this discussion currently. Try to keep up. Also no need for caps mate, take a deep breath.
Either you don’t understand what the word precedence means or (more likely) you’re deliberately missing the point so you can do what your post history is full of. Which start arguments with people and try your level best to demean them. There has been 0 reason for your tone or behaviour during joining this discussion.
Seriously, the way you speak to people is gross. If your idea of recreation is having a go at people online then it pretty apparent that you’re probably not doing too well with life.
Spotify isn’t a charity
Ohh, they're trying to be a shit-hole. Now I understand.
You guys, there's a reason we don't clean toilets. Toilets are supposed to be dirty.
I have no idea what you’re talking about, like at all.
I don’t even use Spotify.
I'm just agreeing that Spotify isn't a charity. They have no obligation to be good or useful, and they will continue to destroy their service, and things will continue to get worse, and there's no point in fighting any of this, and there never will be, and so it is, and so it shall be, until you die.
It's just, I'm learning in real time now how best to treat life, you know? It's good stuff.