TorrentFreak has the blow-by-blow of the case. I am not sure that the logic the judge used to arrive at the ruling is entirely sound. Past rulings in this vein have echoed the heart of the Betamax case here in the US. That is new devices and services have been exempted from secondary liability through the presence of substantial, non-infringing uses. That train of thought doesn’t appear to be represented at all here.
Rather, the judge emphasizes that “mere transmission of data” is enough reason to deny the injunction against the site in question. He builds on that by considering the operator’s finances, or lack thereof. One is hopeless vague and the other unlikely to stand up to an appeal or in working out successive cases.
I’d like to cheer the victory, but it is important that precedents be set clearly and correctly to have the maximum benefit to those trying to innovate with digital media and online.