I understand the intent of the regulation, but there should be other ways than do not disincentivize releasing content for free.
I was absolutely astounded when I found out the state of the art today. I was used to, "Computer, how do you wreck a nice beach" from a couple of decades ago.
Why can't a place like Stanford auto-caption things? Especially things like lectures which are super easy - a single speaker droning on in a silent room using high-quality speakers. without any editing the output should be absolutely useable.
The only time it really wouldn't work at all is in a very noisy environment where you can hardly understand it anyway.
I realize some of the captions might end up garbage, but I don't think enough would to make it into a complaint.
By the way, I find Google's autogenerated CC is useless on any video no matter the type or audio quality. (For example a lecture.) Another reason to think the link uses something else is that it takes several seconds (during pauses) to come up with the result - it is slower than real-time. I don't know if Google takes the time to slowly process every video in case someone clicks the autogenerated CC... The quality definitely strikes me as different. (And one of the reasons I was so surprised that the above link is actually useable.)
If I'm blind and I go to an art gallery should there be an audio track to somehow explain what I'm not seeing?
What about a play? Are plays specifically exempted or is it just that nobody has bothered to sue a theatre for a lack of subtitling just yet?
What if I go to a fancy restaurant but have no sense of taste or smell? How will that restaurant compensate me for the experience I'm missing out on?
The ADA also covers things like plays (classified as "entertainment"), and plays like Hamilton were sued for not providing audio descriptions of what is happening on stage. Movie theaters have to provide the same service to blind users and this also applies to Netflix movies and shows.
Restaurants probably wouldn't fall into the entertainment category, so they're not covered by the ADA.
For the "deaf and blind" scenario, most litigation is held off by the provision that says the establishment doesn't need to provide an accessible experience if providing such experience would be "unduly burdensome". For example, a blind and deaf man sued Cinemark for not providing tactile ASL interpreters for him (he communicates using sign language and by touching the hands of someone signing to him). The theater said it costs $60 per hour for an interpreter and a movie would require 2 interpreters, so $120 per hour is a bit nuts.
But audio descriptions and subtitles are not considered unduly burdensome - they're not that difficult and are basically seen as a requirement at this point.
Doesn't that mean that libraries must remove books that are not also available in braille?
In most cases, the resolution is to provide the material in the format required to the user. This is usually a trivial matter as books can be ordered in braille fairly easily.
The university decided that making their content available to all users was too difficult, so their resolution is to make it available to no one. A library could do the same and that resolution would be legal. It's just stupid. Which is why people are saying what the university is doing is stupid.