It often is. Because by its nature, copyright is about restricting information flow, and therefore it naturally can conflict with free speech, especially when copyright maximalists go overboard with it (which they always do).
So any kind of abusive copyright initiative should always be a suspect as attack on free speech. And this case is a very obvious example.
It's not abusive to point out that finding full episodes of copyrighted shows in their entirety has been trivial and that YouTube benefits significantly from distributing stolen content.
The reality is, tech companies have had over a decade to demonstrate that they could behave themselves, manage their own platforms, and balance the needs of both content creators and the public.
Let me put it very simply for you. Those who try to extend the copyright in all directions are often proponents of censorship and police state methodology. It's commonly the same ones who push for DRM and anti-circumvention laws.
Public should not tolerate such kind of garbage, especially when corrupt politicians lie through their teeth about the consequences of such kind of laws.
It often is. Because by its nature, copyright is about restricting information flow, and therefore it naturally can conflict with free speech, especially when copyright maximalists go overboard with it (which they always do).
So any kind of abusive copyright initiative should always be a suspect as attack on free speech. And this case is a very obvious example.