The law was changed in 1990. 27 years old.

These "legacy" things are between 3 and 10 years old.

The law had been in effect for 17 years before Berkeley started producing video.

OK, but what was the video created for? Not to put online, I bet.

Which ancient archival things? The description in the article is "legacy content that is 3-10 years old."

It certainly was a concern; Berkeley made the decision to ignore it. And yes, access means access for all.

It's impossible to have access for all. Reductio ad absurdum: illiterate and mentally handicapped people exist, therefore, we should burn all books.

There's likely a fairer way of doing this instead of denying access to all for the sake of a few. For example, a JIT system for accessibility. A disabled person, if interested, could make a request to have material translated to their preferred mode.

Access is not being denied for all, UCB students will still be able to view all videos (it's in the article).

Thanks, I did read the article. I was responding to GP in a general sense.

Still, I think it's a matter of interpretation. Access is being denied for all i.e. the public.

And when it's prohibitively expensive, you really prefer just not giving anyone access?

The amount of video that is being produced and uploaded today makes a requirement to put traditional closed captioning on each one absolutely laughable and ridiculous. It's telling that the requirement was dreamed up in 1990, probably by people without a lot of vision for how cheap bandwidth might become and the amount of content that would be produced and shared within a few decades.

The public is the loser, here. Institutions like Berkeley will have to pull down high-quality content, but amateur content isn't affected. So the overall quality of content available to the public just got worse.

There is no way in which this is a win for the majority.