I see absolutely nothing in those six points that would irreparably harm Hollywood in any way. You could make arguments against all of them, but they aren't arguments that would beneficial for anyone - except maybe the few people whose job it is to argue against those things.
If that's the case, then there's not much financial incentive to keep the work under copyright anyway, so why is copyright needed?
And there's no real reason to charge a registration fee. A searchable online registration system can be setup with very little overhead by the government. You could also charge a single fee for a group of works. There's ways to manage this without shouting "what about the starving artists!" It's not about extracting money for copyright - it's about having a way to know what is protected and what isn't.
Simply claiming fair use is not the same as actual fair use.
If people like your paintings so much that they want to copy them, then you should be able to command a higher price for your paintings. It's not like copies can replace the original, and sharing might actually increase your reputation and lead to commissions.
That's the most logical and neccesary laundry list of copyright fixes I could possibly imagine (I'd also throw in a reduction of copyright term lengths). You could implement all those changes and it wouldn't harm the the major media corporations in the slightest.
The only reason they fight against these things is because someone's getting paid to fight against these things - not because any of these issues would seriously impact their bottom line.
Broadcast television and radio has thrived for decades while offering their content free to the public. They're even able to compete against cable, despite having their content highly regulated and even censored by the government. In fact, their model is so successful that cable copied it and gave viewers commercials too, even though they are already paying for the content that should be commercial free. Cable companies could shut down tomorrow, and broadcasting will still thrive with their free offerings.
And if the internet is choking, it's only because of the monopoly cable companies hold on the internet are choking it. If they can offer all those channels via cable, they can offer them via internet too.
The content being created for cable is all by professionals who do it for a living and probably aren't going to do it for free on Youtube (assuming their audience wouldn't be large enough to generate a profit). I'm not going to cry over their lost jobs, though.