>>100
I thought that, but as it's an archive they will be largely static. Unless one runs a normalisation or silence-stripping pass over everything, there will only be one copy of anything.
The idea makes use of the distributed properties of git, or maybe fossil, which would provide better availability than FTP or another traditional centralised approach. The version control aspect is more of a nice way to see history, rather than necessary by design.

>>102
That's a fair point, but unless others clone your repository, there will still be only one copy of everything. Depending on file size, putting myself in the shoes of a user I'd be more likely to visit a centralized location and take what I need rather than keeping all of it around on my own. If it's largely static, and if you can forsee people keeping the whole thing, it might be a good idea to keep it alive as a torrent. With good trackers, and especially with DHT, you'll get far more availability than you ever could with a distributed VCS.