> And it has the extremely useful property of creating a market incentive to bankrupt pedophiles. So, we treat child porn the same way we treat movie or music

> And it has the extremely useful property of creating a market incentive to bankrupt pedophiles. So, we treat child porn the same way we treat movie or music piracy, with the major difference being that victims doesn't have as much money as RIAA and MPAA to fight the pirates, and instead of good lawyers we get ambulance chasers, as pointed by the other poster? You honestly believe that converting something that is currently a crime into a mere copyright violation will work better at removing the incentive for distributors of child pornography? You're also delusional if you think distributors of child-porn operate in the daylight. Individual victims (or their proxies) don't have as much power/resources as the government to seek pedophiles just for noticing them for copyrights. The only thing your suggestion would accomplish is making child-porn de facto legal. > This is why fair use exists. Copyright doesn't always get that right, but now you're leveling a criticism of copyright implementation at a use case where it doesn't even apply. Pedophiles aren't distributing child pornography for the purposes of criticism. Fair use makes your idea sound even more evil. Now an abuse victim risking losing a copyright case against a photographer using child-porn for criticism, or if someone uses it in a book for demonstration purposes. On the other hand, your post is a tremendous idea for a dystopic novel. David Bowie made an album in 1995 about a detective deciding whether or not "Art-related Crime" is art, but you took it to an even darker corner.