• MajorHavoc@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      5 months ago

      The fact possibility that they’re unable to provide lyrics gives radio stations a free pass on this, under ADA (and most similar laws).

      Edit: Correction, per correction below - options for providing radio captions do exist.

      Edit 2: For anyone reading along to learn - a radio station without captioning technology is unlikely to be required to add captioning under any accessibility law I’m aware of. But a station that provides captioning is unlikely to be able to charge extra for that captioning under current accessibility laws.

      Businesses are typically accountable to provide equitable accommodations at no additional charge.

      A comparison that may help: a storefront with no dedicated parking whatsoever is typically not required to provide the usual required percentage of reserved accessible parking. Or rather, their zero reserved spaces meets the required percentage automatically, at it’s whatever percentage of zero total spaces.

      • piccolo@ani.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        edit-2
        5 months ago

        they are able to, many FM stations support RDS to serve data. ever been ina car that told you the song playing on the radio or the station’s name? yeah thats RDS.

        • MajorHavoc@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          7
          ·
          edit-2
          5 months ago

          You are technically correct - the best kind of correct! (Futurama quote, meaning I appreciate your correction.)

          It’s probably not an issue for a station that simply doesn’t have that level of captioning, yet.

          But I take your point - it would likely be a violation if they had that captioning and tried to monetize it. (In my far more informed opinion than that of a couple of asshats who were replying to me in this thread.)

          • SchmidtGenetics@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            8
            ·
            edit-2
            5 months ago

            So why does that apply to OTA, but not their website or other delivery methods…?

            Your “laws” seem to have lots of exceptions when you need them to. But also, not surprisingly, very easy to find the flaws since they don’t exist and you’re not smart enough to think of these yourself apparently….

      • SchmidtGenetics@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        12
        ·
        edit-2
        5 months ago

        They can provide lyrics, most have websites, they can print a pamphlet, that’s just excuses to justify crying out against one and not the other.

        What makes them unable to, but Spotify able to?

        • MajorHavoc@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          5 months ago

          Once an organization can no longer claim an accessibility accomodation is an undue burden, then various laws kick in (can no longer be evaded during a court case or an audit) dictating how that accessibility accomodation must be managed.

          As was pointed out, many radio stations do provide captions, and in doing so, fall under (no longer receive any exemption under) the same laws about how they managed those captions.

          Spotify is also a big enough organization that any claim of “undo burden” would probably not hold up in court, anyway.

          While a small local radio station might well be protected, and is a good example of why such exceptions exist.

          • SchmidtGenetics@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            9
            ·
            edit-2
            5 months ago

            Once an organization can no longer claim an accessibility accomodation is an undue burden, then various laws kick in dictating how that accessibility accomodation must be managed.

            What…? The laws applies to everyone, you can’t just claim I can’t afford it. Got a source please?

            As was pointed out, many radio stations do provide captions, and in doing so, fall under the same laws about how they managed those captions.

            Where was this pointed out? Most don’t, and the few that do just link to other places, something Spotify could do to with what you’re claiming. Why do they need to provide the actual words when radios don’t? Another source on this would be great. You’re already saying the laws apply differently, but are the same? You’ve contradicted yourself multiple times already….

            Spotify is also a big enough organization that any claim of “undue burden” would probably not hold up in court, anyway.

            Source that’s a thing.

            While a small local radio station might well be protected, and is a good example of why such exceptions exist.

            So I can just claim I don’t make enough and not need to follow any ADA laws? That doesn’t sound right, even non-profits get riddled with ads claims, so again, source please!

            We all know you’re talking out of your ass, so yeah I don’t expect any actual response, so enjoy your weekend troll!

              • SchmidtGenetics@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                7
                ·
                edit-2
                5 months ago

                I have, it doesn’t say what you’re claiming, so please, provide the links since I can’t find it. Or the more likely answer, it doesn’t exist and now you’re insulting me since I’ve called out your lack of actual education. You can’t just make a claim and not provide a source lmfao, that’s trolling.

                It’s always funny when a phony tries to play big leagues when actual people with education are already available.

            • null@slrpnk.net
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              6
              ·
              edit-2
              5 months ago

              Got a source please?

              Of course they don’t.

              But they’re going to pretend that its on you to disprove the claim.

              Edit: Oh look, they did exactly what I said they would.

    • bl_r@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      5 months ago

      Some do. It’s pretty rare, but stations that are more talk-show or interview style shows might have transcripts on their site afterwards. (The Final Straw Radio, my beloved)

      Music stations? Probably not. At least I’m not aware of any that do. But I also don’t like hearing the disk jockey chat between music so I don’t listen to that type of radio ever.

      • SchmidtGenetics@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        5 months ago

        Most just provide links to other places actually if they do, the point is, it’s nothing to do with ADA and if it was, radio would be required to too.