And one could break out typologies of CP offenders and show that only a tiny fraction of producers, extreme exhibitionists, produce CP merely because they know others will view it. Some CP is produced for commercial reasons, although this is incredibly rare today. And the payment for child pornography production is an entirely different matter than the possession or distribution of child pornography, these issues are not mutually inclusive. In some cases CP trading groups require the posting of unique material every certain period of time, in order for membership to be maintained. This sort of distribution structure does encourage the creation of new child pornography, as after a while members will have trouble finding new unique material without producing it themselves. From a strict libertarian point of view even this sort of membership structure would not be outlawed, as it merely promotes harm rather than technically ensuring it. From a risk to rights perspective it should probably be outlawed though, simply because it strongly encourages production and is not required for either the possession or distribution of CP. A significant amount of CP is also self produced and in some cases intentionally distributed. One may also argue that viewing child pornography increases the probability of CP offenders victimizing children. One may also argue that viewing child pornography decreases the probability of CP offenders victimizing children. Both people will be able to cite many research papers. The people who publish the research papers arguing for the first opinion can also quickly have many citations given for instances where they falsified statistics. I also see that they routinely falsify data in all areas in which they operate.