without his permission there is no question that dr long since the use of his copyrighted material was violated the only question is whether facebook is why don't we have was the perfect solution what your honor is finding problematic to identify say spokane simple to identify and i think we have to really move towards the burden of proof here the burden of minutes we'll give you that too thank you very much your honor may please the court my name is joe brass at drake hungry in san francisco and i represent faces the district court correctly specific identification of infringing materials be removed and that identification can't be by category or can't be by a general rule it needs to be by specific identification a specific material and in this infringed material not the materials on the following pages starting on page one hundred before we have identification of what dr long is asking to be removed which you're saying is infringing and that comes here critically in the form of screen shots not of specific identification with identifiers that identify particular images to be removed with with a u r l or other sort of specific identif in the game in his case were screenshots of things on give unions what the court held in that case and i think what the what the court cases establishes a rule is these screenshots don't don't specifically identify an item with sufficient specificity to go find it without sort of undue looking around in searching for that is we don't take the position that it is literally impossible to go look through  the page and scroll through each image until you find one that looks like the thing that's on p g r one hundred and fifty four dollars and remove it it's it's not but literally possibility is not the standard  remove the material so those are the true distinctions between your honour's hypothetical and this one both this is all on a single the only identify when you are l and that the material is identified in the form of screen but only thing that would get that in his you would have solve this problem is a wholesale over inclusive removal of everything done by timmy dorsett and his restoration as administrator of the page so w there might be some cases in which there was further record beyond what's before the court a motion to dismiss that might be needed to decide whether what needed to be done or what levels of sophistry there was or what what how onerous and unreasonably complicated it would have been to find and remove the material here the record and the positions taken there is no such dispute and that and that sort of thoroughly voluminous record of communications is before the court here just the same as it would be in any other stage of the case and so that that allows the court to make a determination as a matter of law looking at materials and specifically did so on its own motion with respect to the seven thousand two hundred dollars the california plan and with respect to that claim the dr long declined the court's invitation to file a further amended complaint dr long has not requested further leave it to him and with respect to any other claims  not raising it in the opening brief the appellant would have waived were that were that the thing that they wanted to do  you so if i understand the technical side of the it seems like they are alleging linking and maybe cashing and not storage but maybe they so to the extent the court finds that what the what what is alleged that they have that they have adequately alleged a claim for a copyright infringement arising out of linking to infringing material or the cash  things need to be pleaded by the plaintiff in order to make out copyright infringement claim this is not to say that there isn't that there are some plaintiff might not be able consistent with levon to plead out information and believe that it was done in matter x vs matter why versus manners e by person by by a variety of different by different people that is up a plaintiff might be able to plead consistently with rule ele affirmative just bents our position is not your honor that the appellant needed to plead facts that overcome the different what i understood your honor to be asking about was what the pla plead about what the nature of the infringing activity was that is being complained and that the plaintiff does need to prove in order to make out their money for government record as to how that fits into  in it that allowed the district court to make a determination on an affirmative defense the defendant coming forward with a bunch of facts at the pleading stage doesn't get them there in this case those facts are on the r those facts are all properly before the court because the point of chose to include them and refer to those documents and so that all of the set of documents making the full documentary record of everything that happened in those responding whether or not you had asked on you and told financial gain you know if you go through all the technical requirements of a b c that some of those things are just not ever going to be within the knowledge of any  necessary to prove copyright infringement but this actually doesn't require that every single infringement and image be identified and i might have to go to a judge erickson's point thanks  ok and then we have one more case on our docket and th