Part I of this Note traces the development of criminal restitution and child pornography law, placing the current federal statutory framework in its historical context. Part II surveys the cases that have dealt with the issue raised by Amy's restitution claims, and explains the wide range of approaches courts have taken. Part III argues that restitution is a poor fit for non-production child pornography offenses. This section first shows how victims' lawyers are misinterpreting the statute, and then moves into broader policy arguments in favor of disallowing restitution. Finally, Part IV of this Note proposes a victim compensation fund as an alternative to the unwieldy system of restitution under 18 U.S.C. § 2259. This section examines how such funds have been successfully implemented in other areas of the law and provides a sketch of how such a fund might operate for the benefit of child pornography victims.