As more countries weigh whether to punish serial copyright infringers by taking away their Internet access, critics debated Wednesday whether such efforts have a deterring effect. A panel discussion at the Congressional Internet Caucus' State of the Net conference examined such laws as one awaiting final approval in France that give infringers three chances to stop before their Internet access is cut off by a court and legislation working its way through the British Parliament that would impose graduated levels of notice against infringers with the ultimate sanction being a cutoff of Internet service.

John Morris of the Center for Democracy of Technology argued that given the importance of the Internet to education, business and other aspects of society, cutting off Internet access goes too far, saying the actions of a child could harm the entire family. "The response is disproportionate" to the crime, he argued. He said a more appropriate penalty would be a lawsuit.

The Computer & Communications Industry Association's Matthew Schruers added that more focus should be placed on "notice," when an Internet service provider or someone else notifies a user that he or she may be infringing copyrighted materials. "Notice is very effective in getting people to stop" infringing, he said, pointing to Canada's notice regime as being particularly effective.

But Shira Perlmutter of the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry, which represents record companies around the world, argued that "notice doesn't really work," adding there needs to be "some sort of meaningful consequences." She also said that in most cases, Internet access would be suspended to only one account and may not affect a whole family. Perlmutter added that Internet service providers cut off service to customers now if they are abusing the ISP's services. But Schruers said those are voluntary actions, while the proposed laws would require ISPs to cut off a user's access.