Assuming that a defendant must be caught and informed of the loss of their first two strikes (as versus being caught once for a least three instances of the cri

Assuming that a defendant must be caught and informed of the loss of their first two strikes (as versus being caught once for a least three instances of the crime, and losing them all at once), such a solution--if enforced effectively enough--is not terribly far from ideal (at least from what should be the RIAA's long term perspective), in that the emotional effect of having been caught twice ought to be a sufficient deterrent for any reasonable individual not to continue to illegally download music. That said, the third strike is still perhaps too stringent to actually be enforced, even as a bandwidth limiter rather than a complete disconnect, and the fear of enforcement is a crucial part of an effective deterrent. I would be more inclined to suggest limitations on internet usage for 2^N months (or some reasonable facsimile) for an Nth offense. Of course, any such scheme is dependent upon dramatically better enforcement, in much the same way that, due to ineffective and uneven enforcement, drug laws are not an effective deterrent.