Two employees of Gallaudet University—a school for the deaf in Washington, D.C.—filed a complaint with DOJ alleging that Berkeley's online content was inaccessible to the hearing-disabled community. After looking into the matter, DOJ determined that Berkeley had indeed violated the Americans with Disabilities Act, according to Inside Higher Ed.

Berkeley had two choices: spend a fortune adding closed captioning to the videos, or remove them from public view. Cost-conscious administrators chose the latter option.

http://reason.com/blog/2017/03/07/berkeley-deletes-200000-free-online-vide

Read my mind, apparently the act moment I thought it. That is completely insane. Youtube close captions videos (or asks users to volunteer to do it.)

We have got to get judges informed about technology.

Frankly I wouldn't just automatically accept Reason's highly biased, libertarian take on this. As a public institution, UC Berkeley is legally compelled to make all of their materials fully accessible (I'm willing to accept that ADA guidelines do serve the greater good, even if some libertarian blogger thinks otherwise). CC'ing 20,000 lectures is no small task, and certainly would have taken some time and expense.
So while some may see this as government overreach, it can also be viewed as inadequate funding of public institutions of higher learning.

Since I don't want to repeat over and over the same argument.

My company just had to jump through many hoops to comply with the ADA for a big NASA contract. I understand the requirements, but to deprive the rest of the world of valuable resources because of the act seems ridiculous.

Ugh, the fucking deaf community. Just give all those assholes cochlear implants and watch their heads explode.

Those people didn't pay to watch that baseball game! They're stealing!

Slow your roll, numbers.

the nice thing here is that I discovered lbry.io

I am curious what the Americans with Disabilities Act has to do with this? Seems an odd way to remove videos from the internet?

Since it's a state university making lectures publicly available, the argument is that they all need to be closed-captioned in order to comply with the ADA.

Sounds like two assholes did this to only find out they're still not going to be accommodated. Its one thing to be accommodated going to that school its another if you didn't pay be accommodated and not being affiliated to that school.

I disagree.

First off, people working at a school for the deaf are unlikely to be assholes.

Second, it's a law, and basically a good one:publicly-funded organizations should be wheelchair accessible, and provide media, guidance and documentation for blind and deaf people.

Third, if I was working at a school for deaf people and saw UC Berkeley offering all this material to any other student in the country but my students couldn't take advantage of it because Berkeley wasn't providing close captioning, I'd probably be miffed enough to file a claim. Yes, you can argue, as I suppose you will, that it should be the school of the deaf that takes the Berkeley videos close-captions them, but I wouldn't be surprised if there were legal issues preventing that route even if they wanted to.

No, really, people working at a school for the deaf are almost guaranteed to be assholes.

And no, the videos are CC licensed. There is absolutely nothing preventing anyone from closed captioning them.

Because crowd-sourced closed captioning is completely troll free

There's still nothing preventing them from doing it.

They didn't remove them out of spite.

The guy running Library.io is sensationalizing the actual ruling and making a name on his own:

A complaint filed with the Department of Justice by two employees of Gallaudet University in D.C. claimed the school’s “webcast.berkeley” videos were in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Federal officials sided with complainants in August before issuing an ultimatum: fix the videos or make them privately accessible to students.

So they made the videos private. UC Berkeley is creating a new portal with authentication.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/mar/7/berkeley-removing-20k-free-educational-videos-afte/

I think it's fair to say that the plaintiffs forced the removal out of spite.

I don't wanna piss on the deaf, but I have to question the logic that would state that if you went to that school (Berkeley) and were deaf you would most certainly have been accommodated, but because you are enjoying it after the fact, for free, you expect the same. Now, I can understand being rightfully pissed off if I go to watch a lecture and can not hear it. In fact, its that I can not see (and thus understand) these videos that I am frustrated. So, I get exactly where they are coming from.

Only, I am not going to be asshole and sue an institution that has nothing to do with me personally just because I am frustrated. If these people wanted something done about a work in creative commons license they have not only every right to ask, they could easily have been a way to accommodate them because that is exactly the spirit of creative commons.

Should we black out every book in the library if they do not offer a braille version?

Last I checked live professors lectors do not come with close captioning. Such students have to have someone either sign or take notes from them, something they could of had done from their own university.

I've taught many university classes. If there is a student that requires a sign interpreter, one is assigned to the class. It seems unreasonable to essentially require a translator for every class, regardless if anyone in that class needs it. It's a case of, "We have this great resource. Maybe not every single person can take advantage of it, but shouldn't we at least make it available to those who can?"

I wonder if I can file a claim against their library for not having Braille versions of all their books. I'm not blind, but it seems like an identical argument.

blind people have used braille translation software and braille keyboards for a long time.

http://www.baum.de/cms/en/pronto40/

On books?

You'd be surprised at how many books are available in audio form from free libraries for the blind, including college texts.

You miss the point:

There are many, but not all of them are available. In fact, it's a common problem in discussion among librarians that offer braille reading (my girl is a librarian.)

He's right. The logical end to this line of reason would be to remove all books from the university library that doesn't have a braille translation. In fact, you could use the same argument against any public library.

Universities though have to provide access, so even if they have no audio or braille versions (audio is a lot more common these days) they have to supply a reader.
Braille is actually becoming passe among the visually impaired, increasingly supplanted by audio description, and like I said, pretty much any book available in a public library now has an obtainable audio version. Libraries don't have to close or remove their books because they're at least working on providing reasonable access.

You're wrong. Not about braille but about the prevalence of audio availability vs the VAST amount of writing without readily available accessibility be it braille or audiobook. How about people who are both deaf and blind? They still require braille despite how passe it might be.

So again, right back at you: should we remove completely such books until a time where they are available?

You're tenacious kyle, even if you refuse to run for office you should go into law.
Yes obviously everything that's been written hasn't been committed to audio or braille, but the point is the attempt is made- once again that magical term 'reasonable accommodation'. The effort counts, and the fact that your librarian gal (bless her heart) is fretting about this demonstrates it. See I know a little about this because my gal happens to be visually impaired, and a voracious reader. She almost never has trouble finding what she's looking for in audio form from one of many free library services for the blind.
As for the blind and deaf, yeah it's tough, but the effort can still be made to accommodate, through braille transcription.

I agree the effort can, and absolutely SHOULD be made. However, were I draw the line is what happened here. You can not through legislation or legal action make fair what is inherently unfair. No person obese enough can know the joy I feel on a tightrope. We can provide them thicker ropes, but should that not be possible or not happen, should I no longer be allowed to walk across a tightrope myself?

But a deaf person certainly could appreciate these lectures, with accommodation. It's not the nature of the medium that's the impediment, it's the unwillingness (or inability) of the institution that owns them to put in the expenditure. I get that you see this as unfair to everyone else who could appreciate them without captioning, but remember that Berkeley never had to make these lectures public in the first place.

Berkeley doesn't own them, sorry. And as such, if those deaf people went to Berkeley, they would have been provided a translator.

In this case, Berkeley handed over ownership of the work to the public at large and youtube monetized it by being the distribution mechanism. If the deaf person went Berkeley, and wanted to see that lecture Berkeley would have accommodated them. Since that is not what is happening, and instead they are coming to Youtube, it is on Youtube to accommodate them or not.

Dude, see my response below. Creative Commons is not the same as public domain.

FWIW, Just relayed this story to my wife, who's something of an ADA, disability rights expert.
"Of all institutions, Berkeley should have known better".
Basically they never should have posted those lectures in the first place without the requisite accessibility options.

The cost to post already produced videos should be minimal. The cost to close caption all of them would be prohibitive.

This is why we can't have nice things.

I'm not saying you don't have a valid point, but the point of accessibility is accessibility for all. Or to put it another way, is we do have nice things, everybody should have nice things. And any public institution - especially Berkeley, should have been fully aware of this before they posted the lectures.

You wife needs a refresher, I think. Who is responsible ultimately for the video's captioning youtube or Berkeley? Who are the ones monetizing it? Finally, under what provision does the ADA require anyone to accommodate someone who is not their direct client or customer?

Ha, you tell her she needs a refresher.
If Berkeley retains rights to the videos, it's obviously their responsibility. As to the second question, you'd have to refer to the judge's ruling, but being that Berkeley is a public and publicly-funded institution, I'd guess that anyone they make their materials available to could be considered a 'client' or 'customer', even though neither of those terms really apply here.

The ADA provides that institutions and businesses can not refuse someone with disabilities there services based on that disability. Correct? They are not refusing to offer their services to the deaf people in question. The deaf people in question have no right to said services.

What they have a right to, however, is through youtube to provide them that service because youtube are the ones providing the video, Berkeley just filmed it. You can point to the judges ruling if you like, but just because the judge doesn't understand technology doesn't make it right. Case in point: this one, and the judge that okayed letting police have an entire town's search history.

The term is 'reasonable accommodation'. By not providing captioning, they are not accommodating. The deaf people are effectively denied access. Removing the videos from full public access is the easy solution, even if it sucks for everyone else, but you could argue that access to those lectures was a privilege that everyone else (not enrolled at Berkeley) wasn't entitled to in the first place.
And trying to put the responsibility on YouTube is beside the point. The content is the uploader's responsibility, you don't relinquish the rights to something by putting it up on YouTube.

Actually yes you do. When you place something in Creative Commons you don't own it any more. It's your right to place it there or not, but once done you've got no recourse in getting it back because you NO LONGER OWN IT.

The only appropriate body to be suing here is Youtube, since they are the ones providing the medium over which you are watching it. And yes, I hold that access to those videos through youtube was no one right and was solely a privilege provided by youtube.

So I'm gonna just politely suggest you look up Creative Commons and get back to me.

How about you don't assume that I haven't already?

But this really has nothing to do with the question of ownership.
Creative Commons is not a relinquishing of ownership, it's not the same thing as public domain. It's basically a license to share. You seem to think that because these lectures were available under Creative Commons, Berkeley had ceded responsibility to YouTube in posting them. Not the case. Berkeley still owns them, and can share or not share them as they wish.

You don't seem to get my point.

If Berkeley is responsible for close captioning a video shared on youtube (which makes it a shared version of the original work, not the original work) so now is literally everyone?

What I am saying is Berkeley is under no responsibility to provide access to people not part of their student body, faculty, or members of the public visiting them. While they are the creators of the work itself, that work on youtube is well beyond anything they responsible for because what is on youtube is not their purview.

An example of the idea: shutting down Donald Trump's tweets because he is not providing them in a form the deaf or blind can easily access. While I'd love that, it's honestly on twitter to provide such access and not the President.

Well the point you seemed to be trying to make is that Berkeley had relinquished ownership, which they really hadn't.

But to address these issues-

If Berkeley is responsible for close captioning a video shared on youtube (which makes it a shared version of the original work, not the original work) so now is literally everyone?

No, because everyone is not a public institution of higher learning, which does have that responsibility. No doubt other such institutions, if they've publicly posted their course materials (or are intending to), have taken notice.

What I am saying is Berkeley is under no responsibility to provide access to people not part of their student body, faculty, or members of the public visiting them.

Exactly. That's why they removed the lectures from YouTube and only made them accessible to their student body. And once again, posting something on YouTube does not relinquishing ownership or control If you've posted stuff there, you know that you can edit, add or remove content as you wish, as long as you comply with their TOS.

And as for Trump's tweets, I'm pretty sure they're accessible to both blind and deaf people (though I'm not sure about those pesky blind-deaf folks).
But official government communications do have to be fully accessible.

If we agree it's not their responsibility, why are we disagreeing with having them have to take offline? You see, I don't disagree with telling them they need to close caption something they plan to use in house. You and I are of one mind there.

I am saying this is not that, and telling them they need to remove it from public or fix it seems to fail completely to understand this.

Whoa, miscommunication there I think.
It's not their responsibility to provide any access to non-students, faculty, etc.
But it is their responsibility to make anything they provide accessible, no matter who they provide it to.

See, we don't disagree except on who is providing it to you, I think. I content it is youtube, ultimately. While these videos should be subtitled if they used at Berkeley for any purpose, that is different than Berkeley supplying these to youtube, and then youtube supplying to you in turn.

I am sorry to have to go back here, but lets return to Creative Commons for a moment. Since this work has no copyright, indeed it can not because it was produced by a public institution. (Sorry, I had meant to make this point but got carried off into other more important points.) The Creative Commons licence is just what I am referring to when I bring up youtube. It is how youtube has the right to air this, regardless.

Basically, I am not disagreeing that the school should close caption videos if they use those videos since the hearing impaired might need them. However, I also have the right to these lectures despite their inability to hear them.

My point is the judge does not understand technology since the option was to close caption them or remove them from public. It's not the school putting them into public at that point, it is youtube, and I have the right to it too.

Sooo...
If it was ultimately YouTube's content and responsibility to make these videos accessible or not- Don't you think Berkeley would have tried to make this argument, rather than just take them down?

I am not sure what Berkeley's arguments were or were not, I simply know what the ruling was, and the ruling demonstrates a pretty wide misunderstanding of how the internet works, and a rather awful lack of consideration for the rights of others to have access to what is the public domain.

Once again, Creative Commons license ≠ public domain.
Access to those lectures was a privilege, not a 'right' for anyone who isn't enrolled at Berkeley.

On that we agree, which is exactly why I don't believe Berkeley is responsible for close captioning them.

However, I do have the right to it's access and if a private, third party did not mirror it it would have been de facto removed entirely from the internet. I understand they are different concepts, Sanepride, however they are intimately entwined in this scenario. This absolutely is public domain, the version shared is done so under Creative Commons.

Maybe what you mean to say is that these lectures should be in the public domain, and on that we can agree. But as Captain Picard once said, wishing for a thing does not make it so.