"I love the idea of "lost income" in child porn.

It's like suing the state for lost income because they confiscated the drugs you intended to sell. What legal income is there in child porn? None."

You've got it wrong.

This is about restitution for "damages," not about "her share" of the profit.

The "lost income" supposedly comes from the "debilitating effects" of PTSD preventing her from moving on with her life.

So there is no profit required to claim that the defendant owes you.

Its recognized that drunk-driving is not a for-profit job. And still folks who lost a loved one to a drunk-driver frequently sue not just for emotional pain, but also the loss of a "breadwinner."

They aren't asking for a share of nonexistent profits.

Though one wonders if Justin Berry could sue for "lost income" despite having taken money to produce KP of himself?

Dante