I already mentioned that Chomsky interview on CNBC. If I want to see part two of the conversation, I never will, because NBC news owns the rights to it, no matter what moral force or human power that interview and others may have or how it serves the function of democracy.
Then there is stuff where access is impossible without youtube streaming, like Chomsky interviews. According to you guys CNBC can prevent me from seeing the Donahue, Chomsky interview because they own the copyright to the show?
You could have a system where if I wanted to stream that Chomsky, CNBC video I could challenge NBC to offer it themselves within a certain period. If they don't then I can legally stream it as long as I don't make money from it.
This goes back to my mention of Chomsky's interview on CNBC--the guy who posted that on youtube could be sued by NBC news.
So in summation:
1) You don't cite an actual event that has occurred where free speech has been beaten down because someone chose to pursue enforcement of their copyright. You're instead citing a personal concern based on a hypothetical situation.
2) You can't cite an event because you don't have an event to cite.
3) I suspect you've never investigated whether CNBC would license the video, would allow someone to host it, would make a transcript available, or allow the interview to be collected. Have you? Did you ever try to contact CNBC about getting a copy for your library? About posting the interview as something you find pertinent and critical to share? Do you know what CNBC would ask for such a thing?
Until you've investigated the potential, who are you to bemoan the system? Because you can't have something with ZERO effort? Because someone else hasn't done the work for you? Because it's simply easier to Chicken Little around the yard and scream about what COULD happen under the law, instead of seeing if you can work within the law to make something happen?