Quote:
Originally Posted by fjtorres
There are two FCC posts.
The first enumerates the exceptions and qualifies the mandatories with "as practical" which is how audiobooks have escaped regulation.
("Currently there are two categories of exemptions from the closed captioning rules, self-implementing and economically burdensome")
With Audible proving it can be done the burdensome exemption goes away.
Which is my point.
The FCC pages list the *current* regulations implementing (and moderating) the requirements of the existing laws. Not the actual laws which are very/over(?) broad. There's the Americans With Disabilities Act as well as the newer 21st Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act (CVAA).
Regulations are applications of the law; the listed terms are guidelines, not borders.
As for audiobooks being explicitly listed, ebook readers weren't explicitly listed either. That didn't protect Kindle DX. Audiobooks not being targeted *yet* is no guarantee they won't be targeted both now that captions are doable.
Neither side winning is a given but the coming lawsuits are.
|
I understand, and agree, that with this technology captions could certainly be applied to audiobooks, etc. and not be burdensome but I still don't see how anything in the linked FCC posts (either one) can be construed as applying to audiobooks or podcasts right now. Both links are specifically for video broadcasts and television.
Even the "
economically burdensome" part is still specifically applicable to "Closed Captioning for Television".
Link
Quote:
|
The Federal Communications Commission's (FCC's) rules provide procedures for petitioning the FCC for an exemption from the closed captioning rules when compliance with the rules would be economically burdensome. Exemptions may be granted, in whole or in part, for a channel of video programming, a category or type of video programming, an individual video service, a specific video program, or a video programming provider.
|
Nothing about audio only anywhere in the links you provided or the link I provided.
I'm going back to the original assertion that
Quote:
Originally Posted by fjtorres
Until now, audiobooks were apparently covered by the "feasibility" clause but Audible just blew that to heck.
|
and saying, no, audiobooks are not covered by this at all. They didn't need to be covered by the "feasibility" clause (or undue burden clause) because they aren't video and therefore don't need to comply with any of it.
There might be other rules that would apply but
these rules don't appear to (and I couldn't find any others that would apply.)
I want this technology to expand and be widely adopted but I don't see how the FCC rules we've both now quoted can be used to say Audible "seem[s] to be on defensible legal ground" for this technology.