I was intending tongue-in-cheek. I can see that folks need to get paid, where I have a hard time is imagining a scalable response to copyright infringement that looks like anything other than what Prenda^2 is cited as doing here in this article.
If you tell them what copyrights you own, that they're accused of copying, they could delete it (or hide it better and continue sharing against your wishes.) They could cease only that infringement, contact all of the parties who received illegal copies and force them to delete, and now you've accomplished your goal, but at what cost? You probably won't win in court. It's hard to prove. Moneybags clearly win occasionally because they have moneybags and can buy the verdict.
If you accuse them directly on substantive evidence, without considering it could have been a neighbor, a passer-by, a result of having an insecurely configured network, you're guilty of not knowing how the internet works.
If you sell the rights to the lawyer so they can pursue the infringers however they see fit (something I've read that you actually have to do to make the interaction with the lawyer repeatably economically viable and legal at the same time, since only the owner of the copyright can pursue infringers), you've also sold your exclusive monopoly protection and now you don't own the copyright anymore, can't sell copies, can't sub-license.
I believe in free sharing but I'm convinced every time this comes up on Slashdot, there is just no winning for the copyright holders in this particular court of public opinion. Don't create anything. It's the only way to satisfy everyone here.