Everybody on this thread so far has talked sense, but then that's not surprising given that the nature of posters is bent towards a techie point of view.
My main problem with this court ruling is that any tech savvy interpreter would clearly be able to see that this is neither a solution to piracy nor a benefit to the plaintiff. However the judge wasn't able to see this as they're expected to be a 'jack of all trades'.
Maybe the judicial system needs reviweing when it comes to cases that deal with new technology (and let's face it, anything connected with that t'internet thingy is still relatively new to most ancient judges) be reviewed and judged by somebody with a thorough understanding of the technical details.
To use a real world analogy, this is the same as saying Alan, who lives at the end of the street, knows a guy called Bob, who can get you some high quality knock off gear, and Alan is quite happy to tell you where Bob lives. This ruling is the same as telling the highways agency to close off the part of the street leading to Alan's house. It sets a dangerous precedent of impeding Alan's daily activity, stopping his mates or his gran coming round who just want a cuppa, and if Alan's neighbour, Charlie, also knows where Bob lives, he could also end up being fenced in.
Sorry, bit of a long winded analogy, but it just smacks of ridiculous judiciary madness.