Note that Berkeley is in theory not required to remove the video archive. It's just that by law, they are required to add captions. So, if they want to keep it up, that's what they could do. Except that it's not really a choice - the costs for doing so would be prohibitive. So, really, Berkeley is left with no choice: making the recording accessible or don't offer them at all means - in practice - "don't offer them at all".

Clearly the result of a regulation that meant well. But the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

It's a bit reminiscent of a law that prevents institutions from continually offering employees non-permanent work contracts. As in, after two fixed-term contracts, the third one must be permanent. The idea is to guarantee workers more stable and long-term perspectives. The result, however, is that the employee's contract won't get renewed at all after the second one, and instead someone else will be hired on a non-permanent contract.