After almost 6 hours of work I have finished a 25 page document which is necessary for the filing of an injunction and the lawsuit. What an unnecessary work. Actually I had planned to work on new songs after the vacation - somehow nothing came of it until now.

Anyway, thanks for all your emails, this was extremely helpful for the evidence.

I'm curious how it will go on now, it doesn't happen every day that a small man sues a big company like google.

Here is a summary from chatGPT of my work today:

------------------

In the document, the author asserts that YouTube is unjustifiably removing links to their website, filmmusic.io, from the platform. This removal of links, in the author's opinion, forces users of their music to potentially infringe on the terms of the CC BY 4.0 License, as they can no longer comply by providing the required attributions to the music and the license.

The author contends that YouTube's actions are damaging to their business and reputation, as the removal of links and misrepresentations result in considerable harm to their company and good standing. Moreover, it also affects the authors of the music published on the website, as the CC BY 4.0 License provides exposure for these authors by making the music accessible to other users. These actions by YouTube, therefore, significantly reduce this promotional effect, leading to a loss of revenue for the authors.

Furthermore, YouTube's behavior has considerable long-term impacts on the trust of users in the author's website. By misrepresenting the website and removing links to it, it becomes more challenging for users to utilize music from the site in the future. This not only has immediate impacts on the author's business but also harms their future business prospects and the growth of their website.

The author also mentions instances where users who received a pattern email from YouTube and lodged an immediate protest, in some cases, quickly received confirmation from YouTube that the links to the website did not violate their community guidelines. This points towards faulty automated decision-making on YouTube's part. Additionally, the link to lodge a protest, included in YouTube's emails, often led to an error page, denying users the chance to lodge their protest.

There have even been cases where a user's YouTube channel was automatically deleted after linking to filmmusic.io. After the affected user lodged a protest, the channel was restored, and YouTube admitted that no breach of their guidelines had occurred, further pointing to YouTube's mistaken judgments and inappropriate actions against users of the website and the website itself.

The author notes a significant decrease in downloads, plays, and other statistical values on their website by up to 50% following these emails and actions from YouTube. They also had to spend considerable time and resources to find temporary solutions and mitigate the impacts of YouTube's damaging actions, which greatly increased their workload and resulted in less time for regular business activities.

The author also points out that YouTube operates its own "YouTube Audio Library" and does not rule out that these actions by YouTube may be an attempt to eliminate or reduce competition.

In conclusion, given the reasons and evidence provided, the author demands an injunction against YouTube to stop the false representation of their website and allow users to set links to their website, filmmusic.io, in accordance with the terms of the CC BY 4.0 License.