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.
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.
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……?
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.
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.
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?
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 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.
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…?
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.
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……?