• MajorHavoc@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    57
    arrow-down
    28
    ·
    5 months ago

    it’s their prerogative to try and get people to pay for the service.

    Except that this attempt could easily be shown to largely land on folks with accessibility needs. That’s a big no-no under many laws.

    An interesting comparison is pay-to-ride elevators. For most folks an elevator is a nice convenience they would not mind occasionally paying for.

    But for some folks, the elevator is completely essential. This dynamic resulted in making pay-to-ride elevators illegal in most places, today.

    • Ptsf@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      31
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      5 months ago

      Due to the uniquely fucked up way music licensing works, it’s likely they license the lyrics through a separate company than the music and probably don’t even directly license it themselves (Tidal for example uses Musicmatch’s lyric library and api). There’s a cost associated with this that is likely outside their control. It’s shitty, but it is plalusibly reasonable they implemented this as a cost savings measure.

      • MajorHavoc@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        5 months ago

        That’s a good point. That might actually make the case for “undue burden”.

        A court case about it could be a way for Spotify to pass the problem to their licensors, in theory.

        • SchmidtGenetics@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          7
          ·
          5 months ago

          You keep claiming this “undue burden”, can you provide a source to the exemption in the legislation that states this is possible? Multiple people have asked and you keep just screaming at them.

          Prove your point or kindly fuck off and stop making the most obvious fucking lies.

            • SchmidtGenetics@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              6
              ·
              edit-2
              5 months ago

              employer

              Is Spotify an employer to their customers…?

              Radio to the general public?

              An elevator in a building…?

              Did you do what they did and google something and read the first two lines only….?

              • Ptsf@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                4
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                5 months ago

                You asked simply what they were referring to, ya fucking dick. I gave you an answer.

                • SchmidtGenetics@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  5
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  5 months ago

                  Which has nothing to do with Spotify’s relationship to their customer, or elevators in buildings….

                  That’s not an answer, that’s googling something and providing something everyone here has probably seen. And that’s probably exactly what they saw and decided to parrot without comprehending it has nothing to do with the topic, now there’s entire discussions of people defending and discussing it.

                  Idiots that see your link, are going to think that it agrees with the moron since it’s shown as “proof”.

                  What a bunch of fucking morons here yeesh. You’re also talking about licensing like it applies as well along with them, so yeah not you aren’t “just” doing that, you’re perpetuating this misinformation.

                  Thats FOR EMPLOYERS AND NOTHING TO DO WITH THE BLOODY TOPIC AT HAND.

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

      But for some folks, the elevator is completely essential. This dynamic resulted in making pay-to-ride elevators illegal in most places, today.

      So this is absolutely fucking hilarious and shows your surface level knowledge (or just googling something and having zero knowledge…) they are only illegal if they are the only means of transportation, every single one of the buildings with one these will also have regular elevators, so they meet the code.

      All the law did was prevent single elevator buildings from being able to discriminate. If a non-abled body person has another conveyance method, they can charge whatever they want. This is how amusement rides are able to charge AND have non ada accessible rides. And incase you didn’t know, elevator codes do cover amusement rides in most jurisdictions as well…

    • ThirdWorldOrder@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      19
      arrow-down
      29
      ·
      5 months ago

      You don’t need lyrics to listen to music however. If she’s deaf and can’t hear the music then I don’t know why she needs Spotify.

      • AnarchistArtificer@slrpnk.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        29
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        5 months ago

        Much like many disabilities, deafness isn’t a hard binary between hearing Vs deaf, but a spectrum dependent on many factors. For example, someone may have hearing loss in a particular frequency range, which may affect their ability to hear lyrics. I would also expect that someone’s relationship to music may be impacted by whether they were born deaf or acquired deafness later in life.

        The point that other are making about this as an accessibility problem is that a lot of disability or anti-discrimination has provisions for rules or policies that are, in and of themselves, neutral, but affect disabled people (or other groups protected under equality legislation) to a greater degree than people without that trait. In the UK, for example, it might be considered “indirect discrimination”.

        You might not need lyrics to listen to music, but someone who is deaf or hard of hearing is likely going to experience and enjoy music differently to you, so it may well be necessary for them.

        • ThirdWorldOrder@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          10
          arrow-down
          23
          ·
          edit-2
          5 months ago

          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.

          • AnarchistArtificer@slrpnk.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            21
            arrow-down
            9
            ·
            5 months ago

            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.

              • AnarchistArtificer@slrpnk.net
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                7
                arrow-down
                4
                ·
                5 months ago

                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.)

                • ThirdWorldOrder@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  6
                  arrow-down
                  4
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  5 months ago

                  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.

                  • CTDummy@lemm.ee
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    7
                    arrow-down
                    2
                    ·
                    5 months ago

                    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.

              • petrol_sniff_king@lemmy.blahaj.zone
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                5 months ago

                If this were doable…

                .

                .

                Shouldn’t they, though?

                Like, here’s your 5 stacks of normal newspapers, here’s your 1 stack of braille newspapers. Take your pick.

          • petrol_sniff_king@lemmy.blahaj.zone
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            5 months ago

            Spotify isn’t a charity

            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.

              • petrol_sniff_king@lemmy.blahaj.zone
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                5 months ago

                I’m just agreeing that Spotify isn’t a charity. They have no obligation to be good or useful, and they will continue to destroy their service, and things will continue to get worse, and there’s no point in fighting any of this, and there never will be, and so it is, and so it shall be, until you die.

                It’s just, I’m learning in real time now how best to treat life, you know? It’s good stuff.

      • MajorHavoc@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        5 months ago

        You don’t need lyrics to listen to music however.

        I also don’t need an elevator to move between floors of a building that has stairs, while some people do.

        • usualsuspect191@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          5 months ago

          I think they were more saying you don’t need to understand the lyrics to enjoy music, which would be more like if the elevator still worked for the person in the wheelchair but the mirrors inside are hung so you can only see yourself if standing.

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

            Yeah. I understand what they’re saying, but they’re wrong, based on past court cases.

            Defining “full equal service” in a way that carves out big portions (like knowing what the lyrics are) in ways that fully able bodied people take for granted - has gone badly for companies that let it go to court.

            • null@slrpnk.net
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              7
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              5 months ago

              based on past court cases

              That you refuse to share with the class 🤔

              But they’re totally real. For real.

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

              Just because a building can afford a glass elevator so you can see the view doesn’t mean the building next door is denying full service to people who can see because they don’t have one.

              You’re a fucking moron and need to shut up, every point you’ve made is easily disproved, it’s like you’ve googled a term and read 2 lines and run with it.

              Think for more than 2 seconds with your lies and maybe you could see how each and everyone is just fucking retarded as shit dude….

              Give your head a shake, you have zero knowledge on this subject.

              Provide sources, or fuck off.

        • SchmidtGenetics@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          5 months ago

          More both get elevators, but yours has the blinds closed to the view outside, while the other gets to see the most breathtaking view ever.

        • ThirdWorldOrder@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          7
          ·
          5 months ago

          You’re comparing something that actually affects someone’s ability to move around with someone not enjoying free music as much without lyrics

      • III@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        13
        arrow-down
        10
        ·
        5 months ago

        Ah, so you don’t understand disabilities then. Got it.