deiexpe rafelle larent

[Sandra Grady]

In a lawsuit (PDF) filed Thursday in U.S. District Court for the district of Massachusetts, the NAD alleges that Netflix is in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act by not providing captions for most of its "Watch Instantly" streamed movies and TV shows.

Pointing to the approximately 36 million Americans who are deaf or hard of hearing, the National Association of the Deaf says that it and members of the deaf community have already raised the issue with Netflix via letters, blogs, and petitions, urging the site to provide equal access to its streaming content. Despite these complaints and requests, the group says that Netflix has so far set up captions on only a small number of the overall titles on its "Watch Instantly" service.

The ADA requires that all "places of entertainment" provide "full and equal enjoyment" for people with disabilities, according to the NAD, which is asking the court to declare Netflix in violation of the act and order the company to provide captions on all streaming content.

"We have tried for years to persuade Netflix to do the right thing and provide equal access to all content across all platforms," NAD President Bobbie Beth Scoggins said in a statement. "They chose not to serve our community on an equal basis; we must have equal access to the biggest provider of streamed entertainment. As Netflix itself acknowledges, streamed video is the future and we must not be left out."

But in a blog posted in February, Neil Hunt, the company's chief product officer, said that 30 percent of the streaming content has subtitles and he expects to increase that amount to 80 percent by the end of this year. In a blog from 2009, Hunt cited technical challenges that were stalling the delivery of subtitles to Netflix's streaming content.

Netflix is a subscription streaming service owned by the American company Netflix, Inc. Launched on August 29, 1997, it initially offered DVD rental and sale by mail, but the sales were eliminated within a year to focus on the DVD rental business. In 2007, the company began transitioning to its current subscription streaming model. Since its launch, the company was subject to numerous criticisms, the basis of which range from its business practices and workplace culture to issues with the service it provides, including content issues, lack of close captioning and pricing. This article provides an overview of key criticisms the company has faced.

In 2015, Netflix and Cinedigm were sued by Corinth Films over its streaming of the 1948 Italian film Bicycle Thieves; although the film itself was considered public domain in the United States, distinct subtitling or dubbing of the film can still be considered a separate and copyrightable work. Corinth alleged that the specific version of the film, registered by Richard Feiner & Co. and owned by Corinth, was being licensed by Cinedigm to Netflix without permission. The parties later settled.[4][5]

Steven Spielberg, governor of the directive branch of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences (AMPAS), has questioned the eligibility of Netflix's feature films for Academy Award nominations since films are released simultaneously in cinemas and via video on demand, in defiance of the standard three-month release window. While Netflix had previously given its theatrical acquisitions a simultaneous release in theaters and streaming, Roma was the first under a new policy to provide at least a three-week theatrical run before streaming release.[6] According to the official rules of the Academy, a film only needs to be screened in the city of Los Angeles for seven days, with a minimum of three public showings per-day, to qualify for an Oscar nomination. However, the eligibility criteria do allow for simultaneous releases on non-theatrical platforms.[7]

Spielberg complained that films "that are just given token qualifications in a couple of theaters for less than a week" shouldn't qualify. Following the 91st Academy Awards (where Roma became the first film distributed by a streaming service to be nominated for Best Picture, and won Best Foreign Language Film and two other awards), a spokesperson for Spielberg's studio, Amblin Partners, stated that he "feels strongly about the difference between the streaming and theatrical situation," and would address the issue at the Academy's next board of governors meeting in April 2019.[8][9][10]

Critics argued that Roma had an unfair advantage, singling out the service's wide availability, refusal to report box office numbers, disrespect of the industry's standard release windows with only three weeks of exclusive theatrical play (although it is not uncommon for some nominees to only receive the week-long minimum run), and excessive marketing spend (with reports ranging between $25 and $50 million, although its Oscars marketing was rolled into Netflix's overall marketing budget, which should not be).[11] Due to its contravention of the standard three-month windows used by all major distributors, national cinema chains have refused to carry Netflix's theatrical releases. Netflix defended its distribution model, arguing that it was devoted to "[providing] access for people who can't always afford, or live in towns without, theaters. Letting everyone, everywhere enjoy releases at the same time. Giving filmmakers more ways to share art. These things are not mutually exclusive."[6]

The U.S. Department of Justice warned the Academy that attempts to change its rules to discriminate against Netflix and other streaming platforms could violate antitrust law, as the parent companies of the traditional major studios (in particular, AT&T and Disney) have been making investments into streaming services that directly compete with Netflix.[12]

Spielberg missed the meeting due to his ongoing work on a remake of West Side Story. In a remark to The New York Times, Spielberg stated that while people should still have access to theatrical releases due to the communal experience that they provide, they should, at the same time, be able to "find their entertainment in any form or fashion that suits them," and that "what really matters to me is a great story and everyone should have access to great stories."[14][15]

Netflix has increasingly offered large quantities of original content as part of its lineup. However, the outlet has been criticized by viewers and critics for the overall low quality of most of the output. One such critic, Hayley Campbell, commented on BBC Sounds' Must Watch podcast that one possible reason for Netflix's loss of subscribers in the 2020s is due to a lack of high-quality content on Netflix. She contrasted this with the Apple TV+ strategy of investing in a small number of high-quality projects, and with the focus of Amazon Prime Video on third-party content.[17]

Its distribution model for films labeled "Netflix originals" has led to conflicts with the legacy of the film industry. Some cinema chains have refused to screen films distributed theatrically by Netflix as the company's release method reduces or extinguishes standard release windows. After COVID-19 mandates forced theaters around the country to close for several months in 2020, the next year WarnerMedia, Disney and Universal each released films on their respective streaming services, HBO Max, Disney+, and Peacock, on the same day they were released in theaters.[18]

In May 2020, a scene from Back to the Future Part II involving the Oh LL adult magazine cover that Marty McFly discovers and mistakes for a stolen sports almanac that he traveled back in time to collect, and two lines from McFly, were censored, which led to criticism from film preservationists and fans.[19] Netflix quickly restored the original scene after hearing the issue from co-writer Bob Gale, mentioning that it was apparently "a foreign version which he or Robert Zemeckis didn't even know existed, for some country that had a problem with the magazine cover". Netflix does not edit films and used a version that it received.[20]

In late 2018, Netflix faced criticism for its use of stock footage from the 2013 Lac-Mgantic rail disaster in multiple original productions, including the series Travelers, and the film Bird Box. In March 2019, the footage was replaced in both works.[21][22]

In January 2019, Netflix censored an episode of Patriot Act with Hasan Minhaj in Saudi Arabia after requests by the Communications and Information Technology Commission, citing material critical of the Saudi government (such as Mohammed bin Salman and the Saudi-led intervention in Yemen).[23]

Netflix's partnership with Liu Cixin, including inviting Liu to join as a consulting producer for a show based on his The Three-Body Problem, raised questions from U.S. politicians.[24] Citing an interview by The New Yorker in which Liu expressed support for Chinese government policies such as the one-child policy and the Xinjiang re-education camps, five U.S. senators wrote a letter to Netflix asking whether it was aware of Liu's remarks and demanding a justification for proceeding with the adaptation of Liu's work.[25][26] Netflix responded that Liu was not the creator of the show, and that Liu's comments "are not reflective of the views of Netflix or of the show's creators, nor are they part of the plot or themes of the show".[27] The letter points to the challenge of whether the U.S. entertainment industry can work with creators in China and tell their stories without accidentally promoting China's propaganda or becoming complicit in human rights abuses.[28]

The 2017 Netflix original series 13 Reasons Why about a teenager who commits suicide and leaves behind tapes explaining her action was criticized for romanticizing, sensationalizing, and increasing interest in suicide, and "glorified and glamorized" issues such as depression and post-traumatic stress disorder.[29][30][31][32][33] The program was criticized by mental health professionals.[34] The company was criticized for not abiding by its moral responsibility.[35]

90f70e40cf