[chives]

>>Because netflix is the biggest and may slowly become the place

The place each person watches is on their personal computers. When a user streams content or "looks" at a webpage, they are downloading it and viewing it on their personal computer. In this context, where is this place of public accommodation?

This case is like suing the sales man on the corner that you buy your newspaper from because he doesn't know sign language.

Of course this is all a rather technical interpretation of the situation, but think about it another way. Should this precedent be set, American businesses could be paying tens of thousands of dollars more than foreign business websites who need not comply with U.S. Law. The best part is closed captioning streaming video is just the tip of the iceberg. Once the ADA patent trolls get moving, we may our see(or what would have been our) tech start-ups incorporate abroad to lesson not only the direct web site costs, but the lawyer fees they will be paying once the ADA trolls think they are richer enough to be extorted.

Ammmerrricca, Fuck Yeah!

[dllthomas]

My understanding is that the ADA requirements are based on what can be reasonably expected of the company based on its resources. If you're a small company turning a modest profit and you rent a space, you don't need to worry as much about putting in ramps and whatnot as if you're Walmart and you build a building. For the man selling newspapers on the street corner, learning sign language is a big investment. Netflix has the resources to manage this.

[jiggy2011]

Whether or not you download the content for viewing is really an implementation detail, the web is regarded as a place for public publishing.

The patent issue is a separate one, so I think if the government wants people to comply with this then they have some obligation to help protect people from patent trolls.