The world refuses the takedown, but without an overwhelming majority: 56 % no, only 11 % yes, and 33 % of voters with no opinion. A third undecided is a lot. It is the sign of a question whose answer turns on a point of law few people master.
The gender divide is sharp: men refuse the takedown unanimously, while women scatter across all three options, half of them preferring not to decide. That is where most of the global hesitation comes from.
By age, the 45-54s unanimously reject the takedown and the 18-24s refuse it heavily. The 55-64s and the over-65s, meanwhile, are entirely without an opinion: the two oldest brackets declined to take a side at all.
The debate, unlike the vote, is unambiguous. The technical argument is set out immediately: fourteen seconds is negligible, and the right of quotation permits precisely this kind of excerpt when it serves to illustrate a point. Removing a seventy-five-minute investigation therefore looks disproportionate to what is alleged.
The best-received contribution shifts the question to the substance: when an investigation concerns serious accusations that are hard to establish in court, invoking copyright looks less like defending a work than like protecting a reputation.
A final voice sums up the same intuition as a joke, pointing at the commercial interest behind the move. No contradiction came: in this round the undecided third did not speak, and neither did the camp in favour of removal.