> This kind of process is onerous even for regular people in non-dire situations, let alone for children who have just been a victim of sexual abuse. By asking from action coming from the child, you are advocating something that is effectively forcing them to re-live the abuse.
Nonsense. Copyright is designed as a profit-generating system. All they'd have to do is deploy a third party to enforce it. There are many organizations that would love do to this work, and on top of that get paid for it out of the judgments against pedophiles. The victims wouldn't even have to be involved in the cases.
And it has the extremely useful property of creating a market incentive to bankrupt pedophiles.
> On top of that, it doesn't even make sense from a copyright perspective.
Hollywood would presumably by very interested to hear of this possibility of holding the copyright to the work of an "actor" without their consent.
> Not to mention how problematic copyright is in itself, and how nonsensical your suggestion is, since copyright can and is used as a much more powerful weapon for censorship, when used against criticism for example.
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.
> 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.
> All they'd have to do is deploy a third party to enforce it.
Ah perfect, ambulance chasers but for child porn.
This also ignores some major issues: child porn is currently illegal to create and distribute. There are good reasons for this. Once the porn gets old enough, it enters the public domain.
Which means that there's still a potential market for it, and there's no implicit criminality of the creation, but only the distribution of such things.
Nonsense. Copyright is designed as a profit-generating system. All they'd have to do is deploy a third party to enforce it. There are many organizations that would love do to this work, and on top of that get paid for it out of the judgments against pedophiles. The victims wouldn't even have to be involved in the cases.
And it has the extremely useful property of creating a market incentive to bankrupt pedophiles.
> On top of that, it doesn't even make sense from a copyright perspective.
Hollywood would presumably by very interested to hear of this possibility of holding the copyright to the work of an "actor" without their consent.
> Not to mention how problematic copyright is in itself, and how nonsensical your suggestion is, since copyright can and is used as a much more powerful weapon for censorship, when used against criticism for example.
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.