Court Recognizes DMCA Safe Harbor in Universal v Grooveshark Lawsuit - <AUTHOR> http://torrentfreak.com/court-recognizes-dmca-safe-harbor-in-universal-v-grooveshark-lawsuit-120711/

<comment><USER2> I don't understand how Grooveshark can be compliant and/or considered "acceptable" when companies like Youtube actively work to prevent restricted music from being uploaded and yet anyone can upload Rihanna's latest album to Grooveshark and they do nothing about it. How can that be considered reasonable?

They're not even reasonable about uploading; I login to Grooveshark and go to "My Music" and click "Upload" and it asks me to upload my library, nowhere does it mention "oh btw if you don't own the rights don't do it", that's hidden on the terms of service page. The language used on the upload page is I'm sure well crafted so that they don't fall foul of the law but don't dissuade users from uploading: "...and only upload content that does not infringe upon the rights of others.". Why isn't that "Do not upload content that you are not licensed to distribute"?

I must be missing something.

Edit: to clarify for anyone that doesn't understand how Grooveshark works. They encourage users to upload their own music collection and do not at any point explain to the user that the music they're uploading is available to everyone or that what they're doing is illegal. Yes they're DMCA compliant but only at the very minimum required; if they wanted to be respectful towards labels/artists they could quite easily prevent people from uploading unlicensed material.

<comment><USER3> Strictly speaking there's no requirement to actively filter content. YouTube goes beyond the DMCA safe-harbor provisions because they want a friendly relationship with Big Content. GrooveShark recognizes that their model is incompatible with that of the record labels, so they hide in the letter of the law. Though it is hard to see how GrooveShark could possibly dodge the "direct financial benefit" or "red flag" tests.

<comment><USER2> I know it's not required, my point was more than Grooveshark are claiming that they comply and they're great and all but they do the bear minimum, they do enough to not get sued, but then they claim with a straight face that they're supporting artists etc.

Artists choose to sign with a record label, Rihanna wasn't forced at gun point to become part of Def Jam, she chose to and in return Grooveshark are streaming her music anyway claiming that it's "for the artists" and "we comply with DMCA so it's okay".

<comment><USER4> > they do the bear minimum, they do enough to not get sued

The bear minimum is all they have to do. That's why it's called the minimum.

> they claim with a straight face that they're supporting artists

Correct me if I'm wrong, but "artists" is not a single entity or trade group. They are supporting artists that choose to use their service for distribution. They aren't supporting Rihanna, and I'm fairly certain that they don't have to.

> "we comply with DMCA so it's okay"

Well yeah. They do comply (as ruled here). So it _is_ okay.

Sites like reddit and HN and, yes, Grooveshark couldn't get off the ground if they had to proactively filter 100% of submitted content. We as a society have decided that we value that over stopping 100% of illegal copying so we're okay with laws that work to take the content down afterwards.

<comment><USER2> How can you possibly compare HN, reddit and Grooveshark? The first 2 aggregate _links to_ content, Grooveshark distributes content (often unlicensed). That's akin to comparing IMDB and iTunes, because both have movie related content? It's nonsensical.

If you want to use reddit as an example we'd have to pretend that reddit downloads the content from any submitted link and serves it, so let's pretend that happens: if a company went to reddit and said please stop downloading our website content when it's submitted from the domain website.com, would you do that? Would you tell them to fuck off? While profiting from that content?

Grooveshark could if they wanted without _any_ effort comply with what companies like Universal want. They choose not to. It's not about whether or not they comply with the law. It's absolutely not unreasonable for any artist to expect their music not to be on Grooveshark, Grooveshark made a business decision to use the DMCA to their advantage.

> They aren't supporting Rihanna, and I'm fairly certain that they don't have > to.

That's fine, they don't have to support Rihanna, but what they should not then do is take her content anyway. If they're not willing to comply with the wishes/expectations of the rights holder (which probably isn't Rihanna but let's pretend it is for simplicities sake) then they SHOULD NOT be making money from that content!

Grooveshark is a business that takes other peoples content WITHOUT PERMISSION and then makes money from that content and uses the DMCA to get away with it, doing the bare minimum to be compliant. How can anyone defend that?

<comment><USER5> It is nowhere near as easy as you suppose to filter out all unlicensed content with a computer program. If you believe otherwise, feel free to create and market such a system so that we can judge for ourselves. Google, a company who has plenty of capable coders, wrote their own such system. It misidentified birdcalls as copyrighted music:

[http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120227/00152917884/guy- ge...](http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120227/00152917884/guy-gets-bogus- youtube-copyright-claim-birds-singing-background.shtml)

<comment><USER2> if(artist.name == "Rihanna") error("You can't post Rihanna");

It doesn't need to be sophisticated to remove 99% cases of infringement. Sure people could upload Rihanna's music under the name "Johnny John Johnson" but then nobody would find it, so the problem would be solved. Grooveshark choose not to do this because they are driving revenue with unlicensed music.

<comment><USER5> Congrats, you just banned Prof. Usher's lecture notes:

<http://news.cnet.com/2100-1025_3-1001095.html>

You've also missed all the "Riana," "Rihana," "Rieana," etc. songs out there, making your filter both harmful to innocent people and worthless at stopping infringement.

EDIT: And this part is badly mistaken: "It doesn't need to be sophisticated to remove 99% cases of infringement." So you have 1 copy for people to download instead of 100. But 1 is enough for everyone, so you've made no dent in piracy whatsoever, because everyone will copy the one file that _is_ available and won't even care that there aren't 99 more copies of it.

<comment><USER2> Now you're just being intentionally stupid.

Yes, the idea of a single if statement is over simplifying, but it's an example of how easy such a system is. If I was grooveshark and actually building such a system I would build in common song name matching (eg: If Rihanna is the artist name and the song is "Rude boy" then it's bad, if the song is "Hacker News is fun!" it's probably not!

The point is, a system for matching against names of popular artists is trivial to build, are you denying that? If someone tasked you with building a system that could take an mp3 + title + artist and tell if it was the song of a popular artist in a database could you not do that?

<comment><USER5> Searching for "usher.mp3" where the artist.name = Usher is pretty much exactly how Prof. Usher's lecture notes got DMCA'd. I'll give you credit that you could probably ban most of the typos of Rihanna, though. But the wider you cast that net, the more "dolphins" like Prof. Usher you're going to catch.

And you have to cast it widely to even put a dent into things, because you only need one copy available for everyone to copy it. Just one false negative out of millions of songs and everyone copies that one that slipped through. They need exactly _one_ search result, not 100. Google does all that you say and more on YouTube. Let me know how hard it is for you to find infringing content there (hint: not very)? Sure, they play whack-a-mole with it. But that damned mole keeps popping back up and it's not hard to find a mole that hasn't yet been whacked.

Worse, the more you tighten up that code, the more Prof. Ushers you ban. We have Google blocking access to bird songs already. And I know you know how skilled their coders are.

You should have at least banned the cryptographic hashes of anything that got DMCA'd. At least that has few false positives (assuming few DMCA notices are false). It's vulnerable to deliberate infringers making tiny changes to the files, sure, but I'm unaware of any solution that isn't. And you're required to ban anyone who is a repeat infringer anyhow. But we're playing whack-a- mole. More moles always pop up.

<comment><USER2> You're misunderstanding how Grooveshark works and why this would matter.

Yes, a copy of Rihanna's latest album _could_ slip through but it would have to be hidden under a different name for that to happen, then how are people going to find it? If you want to listen to Rihanna on Grooveshark then you type "Rihanna" into the search engine.

> Worse, the more you tighten up that code, the more Prof. Ushers you ban. We > have Google blocking access to bird songs already. And I know you know how > skilled their coders are.

That's completely different though, context is important. Grooveshark is a "free Spotify", Youtube is a video community _and_ a video hosting platform. Grooveshark has one use case, Youtube has many. For example Youtube developers work to catch music that is a part of a video that isn't necessarily focused on the song, that would never happen with Grooveshark. Also external sites embed Youtube uploads and use that to host music, can't be done with Grooveshark.

The fact is you or I (or any slightly competent developer) could build a system that could block almost every single possible upload that labels/artists don't want uploaded, Grooveshark CHOOSE not to do this.

As a user you need to know what you're looking for, you need to tell the search engine what you're looking for, if you're looking for Rihanna you don't type "r1h4nna4534535" and so if someone uploads the latest Rihanna album with the artist name "r1h4nna4534535" who is going to find it? Hell, even if they did there are solutions to that problem.

<comment><USER6> "Grooveshark CHOOSE not to do this."

Of course they don't, it's not their job to police someone else's copyrights. Do you think Escape's shareholders wouldn't sue the officers of the company for breach of fiduciary duty if they discovered they were spending company funds to prop up some other business? If you own a copyright, it's your own job to enforce it. Why should copyright holders get to freeload off Grooveshark's work?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Really great to see that Universal may be held accountable for their thuglike behavior. Be nice to see some class action suits over the mass litigation against consumers using BitTorrent too.

<comment><USER8> Grooveshark is by no means innocent here. It's hard to get around the fact that they're distributing content without compensating its copyright holders through mechanical licenses, and without any agreement with these copyright holders. If it was your copyrighted content being distributed by Grooveshark for profit, with no money going to you, you might feel differently.

<comment><USER9> If you're following the law (which Grooveshark are), then you are ipso facto innocent.

<comment><USER10> They're not legally guilty but morally guilty.

It's websites like Grooveshark that weaken the premise for laws like DMCA safe harbour. Their entire business lies in using DMCA in a way in which it was clearly not designed, making it much easier to against such provisions. It's not only big music who might lose out because of them.

<comment><USER11> "Morally guilty" is hugely subjective. I'm sure it's very, very easy to find a lot of people who would argue that Grooveshark's behavior is more moral than that of Universal, and it's hard to argue against them without falling back on legal arguments.

<comment><USER10> The question is not one of who is worse. Universal does some morally reprehensible things, that does not excuse Grooveshark.

Grooveshark aren't for anybody other than themselves, they base their entire business on people uploading sharing songs without giving any money to the musicians. If a user uploads the song, not a registered artist then the artist gets nothing and the money goes where?

As a result I believe through those actions they weaken the argument for DMCA safe harbour provisions by showing such a clear loophole in the meaning.

That's my moral and non-legal argument against Grooveshark (but not for Universal).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> I used to work for Grooveshark. It's an amazing company full of awesome people that are really passionate about music and helping artists. I'm happy they got this win.

<comment><USER13> I'm not sure if helping artists would be a great phrase for it...How about a list of this months top 10 streamed tracks from users in the United States? I'd like to see how many of those tunes in the top 10 list are from actual artists whose music is legally licensed to be on Grooveshark.

<comment><USER14> Your anti-piracy point is one things, but are you willing to contend that the musicians would be better off if grooveshark didn't exist? Assuming grooveshark couldn't exist if they were required to pay licensing fees for every song that was uploaded and listened to (which, if you've seen their offices or knew how little they paid their developers, isn't farfetched).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> I couldn't find this in the article: _which court_ is the decision from? The bio of the judge[1] suggests that it's a superior-court-level decision. This is an annoying omission to me because with decisions like this, it's important to know what the appeals prospects are. The odds of a decision being overturned on appeal are relevant.

[1]: [http://www.nycourts.gov/courts/comdiv/newyork_bio_Kapnick.sh...](http://www.nycourts.gov/courts/comdiv/newyork_bio_Kapnick.shtml)

</comment><comment><USER16> Not clear to me from the article. Why did the universal lawyers believe the DMCA Safe Harbor rules wouldn't apply to pre 1972 music?

<comment><USER13> From another source:

A judge has handed controversial music streaming service Grooveshark a major win in a dispute with record label Universal Music, rejecting an argument which would make Grooveshark responsible for determining the copyright status of all pre-1972 recordings. Arguing in a New York court, Universal had attempted to claim that safe harbor provisions in the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) do not apply to recordings made before 1972, as the recordings were not covered by federal copyright law at the time of their creation.

[http://www.theverge.com/2012/7/11/3151127/grooveshark- dmca-u...](http://www.theverge.com/2012/7/11/3151127/grooveshark-dmca- universal-music)

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> It's a novel argument to run - obviously the beauty of the judicial system is that the court ruling against this novel argument now sets a precedent (subject to appeal etc) that can be applied in future.

In some ways, I'm grateful to Universal for running the argument as it's one less cause of action that can be argued in the future, or at least can be dismissed much more easily by relying on the precedent.

</comment><comment><USER18> Wasn't there another case against Grooveshark saying the employees themselves were uploading songs on the site?

<comment><USER19> Yeah it was based on an anonymous blog comment and I think it's still ongoing. I asked a couple guys at Grooveshark about it and they didn't seem concerned at all, they described it as a last, desperate move by the record companies.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> Well that's huge news for them, I'm sure they knew this would be the outcome though. :)</comment>


Git-Stats – A local GitHub-like contributions calendar - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/IonicaBizau/git-stats <comment><USER3> Cool! I was actually just looking for a tool like this a couple of weeks ago. I stumbled across git-cal[1], which only works on one repository at a time, but it doesn't require you to import your commits first like this one does[2].

Here's my output from both tools, generated from the repo I spend most of my time in at work: [http://i.imgur.com/chrmeP6.png](http://i.imgur.com/chrmeP6.png).

[1] [https://github.com/k4rthik/git-cal](https://github.com/k4rthik/git-cal)

[2] [https://github.com/IonicaBizau/git-stats#importing-and- delet...](https://github.com/IonicaBizau/git-stats#importing-and-deleting- commits)

EDIT: Just noticed that the "contributions" counts differ.

        peterjmag@peters-imac ~/checkouts/rg/community (git::master)
        $ git rev-list HEAD --author="Peter" --since="1 year ago" --count
        1205

But git-stats shows 1292. What does it count as a contribution?

<comment><USER4> Does one exclude merge commits while the other includes them?

<comment><USER5> Yes, git-cal excludes merge commits.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Name might be a bit confusing with the Gitstats project ([http://gitstats.sourceforge.net/](http://gitstats.sourceforge.net/))

<comment><USER7> They should connect and then integrate the calendar into gitstats, it looks really useful and would be awesome to put into the gitstats report.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> I'm only half-awake, so maybe I'm missing something obvious. Why is the README talking about a git commit hook? Why not just take the data from the log?

<comment><USER9> It seems like for performance reasons, git-stats wants to update the calendar on commit instead of generating it on the fly. git-cal[0] just does this on the fly and works reasonably fast for me. The UI looks very comparable.

[0] [https://github.com/k4rthik/git-cal](https://github.com/k4rthik/git-cal)

<comment><USER8> Hmm, just installed git-cal and it certainly is adequately fast on my main work repo. But it seems to just be for the current branch? (That seems sensible enough, but also makes it somewhat less useful.)

<comment><USER5> Added an option to view stats from all branches ( git-cal --all ), but that'll be slower for large repositories

<comment><USER8> Brill, it's still quite fast on my work repo, and much more useful to me. :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Funny. I was annoyed it was all private so I made mine public 11 days ago. Nice coincidence. [https://github.com/arxpoetica/commits](https://github.com/arxpoetica/commits)

</comment><comment><USER11> Why do people care about this? I never understood why Github features things like "longest commit streak" so prominently.

<comment><USER12> "Don't break the chain!" [http://lifehacker.com/281626/jerry-seinfelds- productivity-se...](http://lifehacker.com/281626/jerry-seinfelds-productivity- secret)

<comment><USER13> I would love it if, for things like my work repo, I could count "Don't break the chain of weekday commits" \-- I would prefer not to be penalized for not working on the weekend. :)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Cool, I always enjoy clever git visualisation tools. While you are immersed in code it's hard to get a good grasp on what are your routines, or on what you've accomplished, and these tools give you a nice picture of that - <USER2> I've found them rather useful on retrospective or post-mortem moments.

One of the tools I use now an then is gource:

[https://code.google.com/p/gource](https://code.google.com/p/gource)

It puts you entire log on a neat graph like file structure with the contributors firing out changes to nodes as time goes by.

</comment><comment><USER15> Doesn't work for me on Windows. Keep getting a blank calendar: That is it has dates and all but no commits.

<comment><USER16> You have to import your commits first: [https://github.com/IonicaBizau/git- stats#importing-and-delet...](https://github.com/IonicaBizau/git- stats#importing-and-deleting-commits)

<comment><USER17> Still doesn't work (for me, osx)

      user@host ~/tmp # npm install -g git-stats
      /usr/local/bin/git-stats -> /usr/local/lib/node_modules/git-stats/bin/git-stats
      firstname.lastname@example.com /usr/local/lib/node_modules/git-stats                                                                                ├── firstname.lastname@example.com
      ├── firstname.lastname@example.com                                                                                ├── firstname.lastname@example.com (email@example.com)
      ├── firstname.lastname@example.com                                                                                ├── firstname.lastname@example.com (email@example.com)
      └── email@example.com (email@example.com)                                                                                user@host ~/tmp # npm install -g git-stats-importer                                                                                /usr/local/bin/git-stats-importer -> /usr/local/lib/node_modules/git-stats-importer/bin/git-stats-importer
      firstname.lastname@example.com /usr/local/lib/node_modules/git-stats-importer                                                                                ├── firstname.lastname@example.com
      ├── firstname.lastname@example.com                                                                                ├── email@example.com (firstname.lastname@example.com)
      ├── email@example.com (email@example.com)                                                                                └── email@example.com (email@example.com, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.com, email@example.com)
      user@host ~/tmp # git clone https://github.com/IonicaBizau/git-stats
      Cloning into 'git-stats'...                                                                                remote: Counting objects: 414, done.
      remote: Total 414 (delta 0), reused 0 (delta 0)                                                                                Receiving objects: 100% (414/414), 47.08 KiB | 0 bytes/s, done.
      Resolving deltas: 100% (189/189), done.                                                                                Checking connectivity... done.
      user@host ~/tmp : cd git-stats
      user@host ~/tmp/git-stats # git-stats-importer
      info  Done.
      user@host ~/tmp/git-stats # git stats
      ╔════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════╗
      ║   Mar      Apr      May      Jun      Jul      Aug      Sep      Oct      Nov      Dec      Jan      Feb       ║
      ║Sun   ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ║
      ║Mon   ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ║
      ║Tue   ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■   ║
      ║Wed   ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■   ║
      ║Thu   ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■   ║
      ║Fri   ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■   ║
      ║Sat   ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■   ║
      ║</comment></comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment>--  ║
      ║Contributions in the last year: 0 | Longest Streak: 0 days | Current Streak: 0 days | Max a day: 0              ║
      ╚════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════╝
      user@host ~/tmp/git-stats # cat $HOME/.git-stats
      {}

<comment><USER16> git-stats-importer also only imports commits by the user set in the global user.email config. Since you haven't made any commits to the git-stats repo, it doesn't show anything.

Edit: it will use the local user.email if that is set. It also will use the GIT_AUTHOR_EMAIL but only as a fallback if user.email is unset

<comment><USER17> Ah, I see. A bit annoying when using more than one user.email across projects. But git-cal works okay :)

Thanks for the info.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> There's an R package for producing nice images like this. Example of visualizing Git contributions: [https://andrew.kvalhe.im/easy-calendar- heatmaps-for-git/](https://andrew.kvalhe.im/easy-calendar-heatmaps-for-git/)

</comment><comment><USER19> Awesome stuff, I really like this for the following reason:

While I do push data to github for various projects, I actually take part in 3-4 active, self-hosted redmine projects that would never be counted in the github graph. Same for a seldom-updated bitbucket project.

</comment><comment><USER20> I wish only that it weren't node…

<comment><USER20> I find it funny that I was down-voted so for this. I haven't maligned the project at all; in fact, I think it's incredibly cool, I'm just not a huge fan of node.

<comment><USER21> I downvoted you because negative nonconstructive comments may as well not be posted. They provide no tangible benefit to anyone who participates in the discussion.

If you have a compelling reason as to why this project would be better done in another language then it would be prudent to include this reason in your original post. If all you're going off is personal preference then it may be best to keep this to yourself.

<comment><USER20> I understand your hope for comments to be constructive, and if you would like to have a discussion about the negatives of Node, it seems like that might be better on an article actually discussing that (though I will include them in this post to sate your curiosity :P). Additionally, I did not wish to start a flamewar (which always happens when you get into a discussion about the relative merits of a language on the internet).

My reservations about Node stem from this kind of app actually; the creation of a tool that goes far beyond the realistic and sensible use-case for Node.

That is, the huge benefit that Node offers is the ability to have both server- and client-side scripting in the same language; that's awesome. However, it's a fairly common bit of knowledge that JS is less than ideal for a wide variety of reasons (e.g., no integers, breaking the commutative property, etc.). While it may be a great alternative to PHP, it's still not that great of a language. So, to go beyond the notion of just using it to unify the language for webapps and to start creating userland applications on such a platform seems very counterproductive to me.

In this case, I am especially taken by the fact that this author has made three or four projects which all do similar things but for different use- cases. If this project were made into, for example, a C library, all of the derivative projects could just source that library and be simpler for it. Not to mention the fact that other projects could interface with it as well.

Despite C's reputation as being rather hard to make portable code, a public API with a C library actually makes it incredibly portable and extensible.

Again, I am completely okay with Node (I don't crusade against its existence), it just saddens me to see such cool projects be based on such a platform when there are obvious benefits to using something closer to the metal.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> Good article, I like it.

</comment><comment><USER23> That's not what I need.

I need download stats, checkout stats, per page view stats and per file view stats.

<comment><USER24> This tool is designed to work with Git, not Github. The stats you are referring to would need to be made available by Github.

<comment><USER20> Actually, if you look at the project more closely, it does support github. In fact, there's even a derivative project that directly interacts with github. However, I think the point of this poster's comment was that this project's scope doens't include ey's needs, not that it doesn't interface with a particular service (I, of course, could be wrong in that interpretation).</comment></comment></comment>


NASA Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer Webcast 1:30 EDT (10:30 PDT) - <AUTHOR> http://ams.nasa.gov/

<comment><AUTHOR> Direct link is <http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/nasatv/index.html> , but it's already taken in HN records by an ISS news conference from a few days ago.</comment>