A bill has been introduced in the House of Representatives to allow copyright holders to hack or denial-of-service attack anyone allegedly distributing copyrighted works without permission. Rep. Howard Berman (D-CA) heads this up, along with Reps. Howard Coble (R-NC), Lamar Smith (R-TX) and Robert Wexler (D-FL).

The copyright holder must notify the Department of Justice seven days in advance that they will take action and of what technologies they will use. The text of the bill only refers to "publicly available peer-to-peer file sharing networks", but splash damage to non-infringing file sharing activity is allowed "as may be reasonably necessary to impair the distribution... in violation of any of the exclusive rights of the copyright owner." Cause of action for wrongful impairment only takes effect for "economic loss" in excess of $250, and compensation for loss plus attorney's fees can only be sought through an investigation by the Attorney General over 120 days.

Can the bill's definition of "public peer-to-peer file sharing network" be interpreted as "The Internet"? Can a falsely accused non-infringing individual (such as yourself) reasonably demonstrate in a court of law that a month-long Internet denial-of-service attack blackout by a media industry-hired disruption group caused them an economic loss of $250? (Do you pay more than $250/month for Internet access?) Would it be worth it to that individual to seek compensation? Do you really want to find out?

The hacking activities allowed by this bill under the given circumstances are otherwise a federal crime with stiff penalties.