It's the same justification for most regulations. It's the benefit of having high-quality goods produced vs the cost of having fewer goods produced. You could

It's the same justification for most regulations. It's the benefit of having high-quality goods produced vs the cost of having fewer goods produced. You could argue that a car with no seatbelts is better than no car at all, but as a society we've decided that seatbelts are needed or else the car cannot be driven. This incentivizes car producers to produce cars with seatbelts, even though cars get slightly more expensive and slightly fewer cars may be sold. If someone builds a car with no seatbelts, upon being told by a court that the car needs seatbelts, they may even choose to junk the car rather than pay to install the legally required seatbelts. Their choice. The same principle applies here. Of course, this case might be different for two reasons. First, the videos have already been produced, so we see the direct harm of the regulation (often the harm is invisible). Second, the trade-off here between higher-quality goods vs more goods might have a different balance in this situation than others.