Where Are The Defenders Of Server Based File Sharing?

from the what's-wrong-with-http? dept

Over at LawMeme, someone is wondering why everyone defends p2p file sharing so strongly, but don't speak up when http-based file sharing is stopped. I think the distinction between "http" and "p2p" isn't really accurate. The issue is really local files vs. hosted files. Clearly, with always-on broadband connections, more and more home computers really are becoming servers themselves, but (as the article notes) there is something about actively uploading files to a server somewhere that seems to be more active infringement to people. If they just open up the door to their own local files, that's more "passive" sharing. Still, the article does make some good points about this, particularly on the idea that if file sharing were allowed - server based (http) file sharing would make a lot more sense than local client (p2p). Some of the arguments make sense, but the real issue is that (still) people like to have a local copy of files such as music - and what p2p apps do is make those local files immediately available for sharing to others. You don't have that with a server based system unless you're streaming all your music to your own machine (something most people don't do).