DeeCee - 8:31 pm on Feb 16, 2012 (gmt 0)
Merely means that whole-sale filtering cannot be enforced by rule of law. However, the article also quotes this statement:
The ruling doesn't stop rights owners seeking more limited injunctions against social networking sites or ISPs, but they will have to be more 'proportionate' in scope and effect.
Meaning that as people keep posting copyrighted material on various sites, separate injunctions can be filed for each one.
In the end it is cheaper to implement an automated content filtering system than having to hire a full squadron of lawyers to respond to all the content owner complaints. Software filtering charges a lower hourly rate than an army of attorneys.
I personally have some trouble understanding that people would like the police to take action, if a burglar breaks into their house and steal their TV, jewelry, and other valuables. They then think that stealing is horrible and the thieves should be caught and PUNISHED, because it happens to be their property that got "lifted".
But those same people for some odd reason think that it should be legal for themselves to steal property produced and owned by others. Or even worse, stealing content and loading it onto various social sites for others to use for free as well.