[lohi]

Many things are valuable. The problem here is that the school don't want to, or can't, pay the full price that it costs to legally distribute the videos. Maybe it's actually fair that the people who want the videos contribute to the cost in some way. Whether that is donations, ads or labor in the form of transcription.

[Myrmornis]

With respect, I think you're over-thinking it.

1. UC Berkeley is an entity that uses the internet

2. The internet can be used, to great advantage, for distributing video files

3. The video files in this case were made with the best intentions of improving the world, and this is also the reason for wanting them to be available to the internet-connected world, for free. They harm no-one, and they make the world a better place.

4. So they should be able to use the internet to distribute their video files, without any special extra costs.

[csydas]

I don't think anyone disagrees that the videos are good to have, but it's not the issue of whether or not Berkley should have been distributing the videos, it's that Berkley was not fulfilling its obligations. As outlined in the Department of Justice report [1], Berkley was making these videos after the guidelines were put in place and after Berkley adopted its own guidelines and had a required signoff for all such projects going forward. They also had and have a resource on campus that assists with compliance as required and conceived by Berkley itself.

The issue isn't 20000 formerly made videos aren't compliant, it's that Berkley was making the videos out of compliance while claiming to be compliant.

THe DoJ's assessment is that Berkley has the resources to correct their error without "undue ... [burden]", so their options were take the videos down or engage in a program to meet compliance witht he videos, less they be penalized.

Berkley opted to just take the videos down. I get this from a financial standpoint, even though it'd be nice if they aimed for compliance.

But don't mistake them taking it down as an order so much; they weren't making the videos accessible as they had pledged to, they claimed they were, and they were continuing not to comply. The complaintants called them on it, and it's unfortunate, but they should have been complying from the beginning before they had a video queue of 20000.

I hope from here on out they will make compliant videos and use their on-campus resources; Berkley's response certainly seems to suggest interest in compliance, so I hope that this can just be a tragedy that we can move past.

[1] https://news.berkeley.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/2016-08...

[weddpros]

You're trying to tell us the judgement follows the law.

We're saying the judgement lacks discernment and does more harm than good. I feel the prejudice suffered by everyone far outweights the justice brought by this case.

[csydas]

I disagree with that conclusion. I'm trying to say Berkley has the resources as determined by a third party, has been lying about compliancy, violating Federal and their own implemented procedures, and during the production of these videos had the resources to do what they said they would. They just did not for whatever reason.

Berkley made a mistake, and their solution to correct it is to just take it down. The Justice Department made it clear in their report that it wasn't an all or nothing outcome and they were willing to work with Berkley on a palatable solution, Berkley just chose the easiest option.

[lohi]

This thread is getting old, so I'll respond collectively to the comments since my last comment.

They produced videos that can't be distributed. This isn't much different from say having an electronics project that isn't FCC certified, not having licensed the content in a video or not distributing source files with software containing GPL code. I can produce all those things all I want, but I can't distribute it and I can't continue distributing it just because I've already started.

[Myrmornis]

I guess, in closing this thread, I'm just going to admit that fundamentally I do not recognize the moral right of a minority of disabled people to demand that video lectures be produced in any particular way. It's great that steps are being taken to make things accessible for as many people as possible, and that new technology is constantly being developed that helps that happen with less effort/cost. But, the video files can be distributed: they are computer files; that is what the internet does.

At the end of the day, for any given resource, there will always be a subset of people who can benefit maximally from that resource, and everyone else who is impeded in some way (can't understand target language, don't have appropriate education; suffer from a mental or physical disability that is relevant; don't have personal freedom to view resource, etc). And though it may seem childish to you, in fact the people are absolutely correct who say "This is political correctness gone mad. If you take your arguments to their logical conclusions we'll never be able to distribute anything because some minority group will be saying it's unfair."

I've spent quite a bit of time over the last few weeks following this saga. I get the impression that national-level organizations like the National Association of the Deaf approve of the sort of selfish, spiteful litigation that was carried out. It doesn't make one think positively of them at all.