I might have overestimated the willingness of Midco to play ball with such a plan:
Midcontinent Communications, an Internet, phone and cable provider in Sioux Falls, is refusing to provide information about an estimated 140 customers who are accused of illegally sharing copies of the film "The Hurt Locker" through peer-to-peer networks.
...The subpoena sent to Midcontinent is asking for the names, addresses, telephone numbers, e-mail addresses and Media Access Control addresses for all the customers whose IP addresses are listed.
...[Midco VP Tom] Simmons also said providing the information would take a lot of work, time and money."We're going to expect some degree of compensation for all of that to jump through all the hoops that they are requiring," he said [Kelly Thurman, "Midco Resists Subpoena in Lawsuit," that Sioux Falls paper, 2010.09.04].
I am pleased to see Midco takes protecting customer information as its default. I am also heartened to see that they are resisting having to act as unpaid police. Midco's resistance to these subpoenas shows one of the major flaws of the thankfully defeated Blog Control Acts: bloggers and nearly anyone at a computer would have had to invest significant amounts of money, time, and study in Internet surveillance and legal advice that would have driven most casual users away from the most free press ever invented.
Update 2010.09.06: David Newquist differs with me (and with prevailing court opinion) about the responsibility for comment-section libel. He agrees with me, however, on the general quality of comment sections, especially on KELO, as refuges for subliterate ad hominem wretches.