You are viewing a single thread.
View all comments View context
0 points

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-1 points
*

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…

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points
*

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply
0 points

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-2 points

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply
0 points

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply
0 points

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-1 points

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply
0 points

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply
0 points

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply
0 points
*

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply

Fuck Subscriptions

!fucksubscriptions@lemmy.world

Create post

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:

Right to Repair/Ownership

Hedges Development

Privacy

Privacy Guides

DeGoogle Yourself

F-Droid

Stallman Was Right

Some other useful links:

FreeMediaHeckYeah

Louis Rossman’s YouTube channel

Look at content hosted at Big Tech without most of the nonsense:

Piped

Invidious

Nitter

Teddit

 

Community stats

  • 5

    Monthly active users

  • 65

    Posts

  • 452

    Comments