this post was submitted on 28 Jun 2024
35 points (94.9% liked)
Fuck Subscriptions
3666 readers
1 users here now
Naming and shaming all "recurring spending models" where a one-time fee (or none at all) would be appropriate and logical.
Expect use of strong language.
Follow the basic rules of lemmy.world and common sense, and try to have fun if possible.
No flamewars or attacking other users, unless they're spineless corporate shills.
Note that not all subscriptions are awful. Supporting your favorite ~~camgirl~~ creator or Lemmy server on Patreon is fine. An airbag with subscription is irl Idiocracy-level dystopian bullshit.
New community rule: Shilling for cunty corporations, their subscriptions and other anti-customer practices may result in a 1-day ban. It's so you can think about what it's like when someone can randomly decide what you can and can't use, based on some arbitrary rules. Oh what, you didn't read this fine print? You should read what you're agreeing to.
==========
Some other groovy communities for those who wish to own their products, their data and their life:
Some other useful links:
Louis Rossman's YouTube channel
Look at content hosted at Big Tech without most of the nonsense:
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
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.
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.
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.
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.
https://know-the-ada.com/understanding-ada-title-i-undue-hardship/
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….?
You asked simply what they were referring to, ya fucking dick. I gave you an answer.
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.
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.
I also don't need an elevator to move between floors of a building that has stairs, while some people do.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Yeah, that could still play in court. (Serious reply. Not sarcasm.)
On what grounds?
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.
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.
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.
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.
Should my free local newspaper also include everything in braille?
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.)
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.
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.
I’ve never seen closed captioning for music in shows, it’s literally just music signs. So obviously they aren’t the same and you’re talking out of your ass like the other user…..
So what precedent? Your precedent that you are claiming, shows that it’s okay to not CC music lyrics…. Jeeez shot your own fucking foot with this silly pout didn’t you…?
Honestly, this caught me so off guard it made me laugh. Not even the guy I was disagreeing with came at like that?? The point was caption/transcription/lyrics are essentially synonymous, all are transcribing some other medium to text for the point of being read. So my point that there is precedent (CC on television being required legally) still stands.
It does shit me that older programs they could/can just put the treble clef symbol for music as you mentioned though.
Old…? That’s the point dude, they still do it since there is no requirement (even in fucking tv) to cc music. Wow…. Music has NEVER EVER FUCKING BEEN CLOSED CAPTIONED.
Lmfao.
There is zero precedent and your point is just wrong, your example they don’t even CC the music in it… so how is it precedent for it on radio. Fucking yeesh. Your example actually proves there is absolutely zero precedent on anything for music closed captioning…. Hence shooting your fucking foot with your own point… can you comprehend that now? Or does it need to be explained even more simply for you……?
Songs are captioned in TV though and I see them include lyrics (when no characters are speaking) or a song title. As the other poster mentioned though it is exemption to current law. Which is beside the point. I’ve also never claimed music was captioned. That is the point of this discussion currently. Try to keep up. Also no need for caps mate, take a deep breath.
Either you don’t understand what the word precedence means or (more likely) you’re deliberately missing the point so you can do what your post history is full of. Which start arguments with people and try your level best to demean them. There has been 0 reason for your tone or behaviour during joining this discussion.
Seriously, the way you speak to people is gross. If your idea of recreation is having a go at people online then it pretty apparent that you’re probably not doing too well with life.
I’ve never heard of that, or have I seen that in ANY media I’ve watched, got a source?
Uhh… what…? Clearly you don’t, precedence means that it sets the bar for all others, (please provide whatever you’re using for a definition so maybe this can be cleared up and you can maybe show you aren’t a troll and actually meant to have a conversation) if nothing closed captions songs… how can that be precedence for it? If anything it’s precedence that nothing needs to do it, since anything with CC doesn’t do songs… again hence the shooting yourself in the foot with your point… but it’s not surprising you would need this explained again.
It’s funny, I didn’t go through your post history, since it isn’t relevant to the conversation at hand, but there’s multiple things wrong with this yeesh. A, you also have comments that come out that way, it’s literally a personal perspective/opinion…. Fucking yikes if you need this pointed out…. and B it’s fallacious and is done to attack someone’s character instead of the points at hand.
Why do you people always resort to stuff like this when backed into a corner…? You clearly have zero understanding of the topic, and talking about something completely irrelevant like it is, is only detrimental to any ACTUAL conversations happening. Common troll tactic, again, fucking yeesh lol.
It was done for parts of a Fray song in scrubs I believe and there are other examples I’m sure. Given it isn’t a requirement and we’ve both acknowledged isn’t done I’m not going to bother fetching a “source”.
That isn’t quite what legal precedence is but close enough, I’ll leave you to research that in your own time. I mentioned requiring CC for TV legally as the precedence for requiring songs or music be “captioned” or have lyrics provided. I don’t understand how you aren’t following this. Hence my assumption of you tripping over yourself to look for an argument.
Given I didn’t enter a relatively neutral toned thread with petulant, personal insults; I’m not surprised. You did, so I got curious. Generally when people enter a discussion like that you draw conclusions about them as a poster. I also find these types also very much don't like people looking post histories. A complete coincidence I’m sure.
Actually hilarious given how you entered this discussion and your history full of hurling insults at people over nothing or a perceived moral high ground. Get a better hobby or change your life so you don’t feel the need to try, poorly, putting people down online.
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…