So I want to find a way to illustrate that anti-child pornography laws are an effective copyright policy. I can do this a few ways. I can show historically how changes in policy coincide with increases in production rates. I can show the upward corelation between increased sentencing times and increased production. But what I really want to do is bring people into the mathematics of the issue so they can see there is no mathematical way to implement these laws and not at the same time see an increase in production. Unfortunately this deals in some relatively high level math because we are taking about converting risk distributions associated with different kinds of behaviors impacting demand curves which are themselves distributions. The math only goes further when you start addressing people's objections and you model their claims in mathematics. For example one argument is that if there were no pedophiles there would be no child porn. Ok. But the propensity for child porn to be made isn't exactly static. We are talking about P (for problem) = N (number of pedophiles) * p (propensity for them to do something with a causal relationship with production such as a commercial interaction. P=Np. Now we make it a function of subjective risk. P®=N®p®. Where the same imposition of risk results also in a decrease in pedophiles. Now the issue is that we want to take a derivative of P with respect to r. We want to know if an increase in r increases or decreases our problem. This would be N®p'® + N'®p®. Now the thus of the math I mentioned earlier which I would like to cover at some point is that commercial interactions don't happen in media markets without risk being applied to non-paying parties. That is the natural case a free market is to not support media markets, and that consumption of a medium outside of a proper media market does not “produce demand.” So p(r=0) = 0. While N(r=0) = 100% of the pedophile population. p'® is positive near r={0,inf}. N'® is negative near r={0,inf}. This means that near r=0 we get N®p'® + N'®p® = (+)(+) + (–)0. In other words even with a decrease in the pedophile population taken into account you are only going to be increasing the amount of child pornography made.

Now I approached this math first because it was easiest. I'm not writing this to convice anybody, though a bright enough person could convince themselves because they would be able to assess if something is a copyright policy or not within their own logic. They would be able to see that the only thing government can do is impact people's lives. That is they only work in initial effect as hope to cause secondary effects. In copyright the initial effect is that people who access media without paying have some chance of receiving harm. The initial effect of cp laws is that people who access a media without paying have some chance of receiving a harm. The secondary effect of copyright policy is that a media market is created. The secondary effect hoped for in cp law is that a market will cease. The tertiary effect caused by cp law is that a media market is created. Now one policy difference is that we have it on the books as illegal to pay for it as well. In practice that is never done. They go for low hanging fruit. And that math addresses that as well and shows that even if risk is increased in lockstep the impact of creating a media market is far more potent than a prohibition, which we see generally is impotent despite a lot of effort. The math also covers why that is.

So let me ask. Do you want me to publish this math even though I'm not sure how to best communicate it. Anyone capable of understanding it would also be able to fill in the communicative gaps. You aren't likely to get it unless you were able to derive it yourself and of course there are many who can. I'm just saying it won't be well written, but it will be interesting. In involves a lot of intuition with representations of values on 2D surfaces so it's pretty fun.

So give me positive feedback if this is something you want to see.