From: Matt Jensen (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Thu Dec 21 2000 - 11:25:34 PST
On Thu, 21 Dec 2000, Jeffrey Kay wrote:
> I think Napster is actually a pretty poor example of P2P. Napster has
> educated the greater community that P2P exists, but it really doesn't
> represent it because the value proposition of Napster is independent of the
> P2P infrastructure on which it runs. In all reality, Napster could have
> been just fine running as a single server farm with millions of connected
> users had there not been copyright law to circumvent.
You're saying Napster could have been done by anyone with a big server
farm and a fat pipe? Isn't that true of most P2P projects? Couldn't SETI
be run on a big Beowulf cluster at NASA? I think the point of Napster was
that Shawn didn't have a server farm, and didn't have a fat pipe, and that
P2P allowed the users to get around that resource limitation.
I don't know whether, historically, Shawn thought of the resources first
or the (alleged) copyright circumvention first, but even if there were no
copyright issues, P2P file sharing let them solve a problem through peers
when they couldn't afford a centralized solution.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Dec 21 2000 - 11:41:29 PST