Hacker News Reader

Comment by pwinnski | Hacker News Reader

His videos aren't subtitled, and are required to include subtitles.

Upload the videos to a private YouTube channel and then download the autogenerated subtitles?

Doesn't work in Hebrew.

I was wondering if he uploads to YouTube, would the same still apply? I mean if he doesn’t link them but just uses YouTube? All videos on YouTube must also have Hebrew subs?

If his site qualifies as a public site in Israel, and the main content of the site is the videos, it would be required. Since his sites' purpose was almost entirely the videos, I think it would be hard for him to defend his case in court.

I don't know what happens to sites that are collecting links to videos that were not made by the site author, because clearly the author can't modify other people's videos and can't rehost them without violating copyright. But a human judge wouldn't be fooled by it in this case :)

Also note: the law requires captions, not Hebrew captions. The captions must match the spoken language in the video.

What if you used excerpts from Shakespeare for subtitles, regardless of the video's actual content?

Then they wouldn't be subtitles.

I think the question is obvious — is this going to pass on a technicality or does the law stipulate that text is required to exactly follow the speech in audio? I'm asking because in my country that's how you usually pass various government audits — by following the letter of the law and ignoring its spirit. I've had to do it a few times at $DAYJOB because of budget constraints and other reasons.

Don't know how Israel's courts work but in England and Wales judges will seek to implement the will of Parliament. That's done by, among other things, interpreting words as they are ordinarily used. Do you know anyone who would expect 'subtitles' to mean text unrelated to the video?

> Do you know anyone who would expect 'subtitles' to mean text unrelated to the video?

By this measure, I'd expect SUBtitles to be under the damn video, not overlaid on it.

You're not making a good faith argument.

The Israeli law uses WCAG's definition. I'm not kidding, the law refers to an "Israeli standard" which is just a PDF that links to WCAG and includes an errata of changes; e.g. captions are Level AA instead of Level A in the Israeli standard.

https://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG21/quickref/?versions=2.0#qr-medi...

Failure F8 seems relevant to the loophole: https://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG21/Techniques/failures/F8.html

No of course not the law is not stupid

If there are some mistakes (due to sloppy or autogenerated speech to text) it might work but not if it's totally wrong

Reply on news.ycombinator.com