The graduated response laws lead to an increase in economic productivity, because of the stimulation received from money spent. While a more aggressive antipiracy law would lead to a larger jump in the economy. However this would be a bump that would have a much more aggressive downfall compared to a gradual increase in antipiracy laws.
Theory would indicate that if we raise the transaction costs for illegal consumption of copyright works, we will incentivise legal consumption. Of course, reducing illegal consumption does not necessarily mean that legal consumption will increase, but it seems likely. Empirical evidence in fact confirms the theory, most strikingly in a 2012 paper by Brett Danaher and others on the impact of the French HADOPI. See my site at www.Graduatedresponse.Org for references.
Regardless of how graduated the process is, I feel that antipiracy laws in general represent a ham-handed way to try to deal with the illegal sharing of copyrighted content. As the resilience of sites like "The Pirate Bay," fresh off another domain change, has shown, it's virtually impossible to eliminate piracy. Being able to catch a minuscule amount of offenders and then trying to make them atone for the perceived sins of the masses is just ridiculous. Instead, more viable methods involve making content have an appropriate value. For example, I haven't pirated a video game in a long time, as the accessibility and prices of digital content providers (Amazon, Steam, etc.) have made it just not worth my time.