In a significant test case brought by six major Hollywood studios, the UK's high court has forced BT to block access for its customers to the so-called "pirate" site Newzbin2. This was hailed as a victory for the creative industries. But it was a defeat for the web and British freedom of expression. We now have the tools for state-supported censorship of the internet.

As ever, the way the Motion Picture Association (MPA) sold the verdict was that it ensured the future development of new content. The prospect of the death of the film industry is hugely over-exaggerated. After all, this ruling comes just days after the final part of the Harry Potter saga dramatically broke yet another box office record.

The idea that at a time when growth is weak and ordinary people's disposable income is being squeezed there is a further huge untapped revenue stream to be found simply does not hold water. I am sure the chancellor, George Osborne, would like to know where the claimed missing millions are actually to come from in the economy. One of the unsubstantiated claims made about Newzbin2 was that it made about £1.40 from each user in a year. This is hardly enough to save an industry.

I don't think there can be any doubt that the creative industries play a vital role in our cultural and economic life, and that we all wish to see them continue to flourish. But the real question presented by a ruling of this kind is whether it is right and proportional.

A worrying aspect of this case is the new burden it places on internet service providers. Clearly the defence that they are a "mere conduit" is no longer acceptable, essentially they are now responsible for what British people want to access in their own homes. An unanswered question is who is to pay for this action to force blocking of websites, it may well fall at least partly on ISPs themselves, and by extension all of our bills whatever our downloading habits. No wonder the rather guarded response from the Internet Service Providers' Association did not welcome the decision, pointing out "blocking is not a silver bullet to stop online copyright infringement".

One of the ludicrous things about this ruling is how ineffective it is for actually achieving the MPA's stated aims. After all it only affects BT customers, and a specific website. Other sites will pop up, it looks like we are doomed to a perpetual round of legal whack-a-mole. The only industry that is really likely to see growth thanks to the Newzbin2 case is blocking get-arounds such as virtual private networks.

The wording of the judgment leaves no doubt that property rights of creators trump those of human rights and free expression. Politicians have been quick to condemn blocking of the web abroad. But make no mistake, the result leaves us with a central control of what we can and can not do on the internet, without any of us individually having any say in the matter. Surely in a democracy this can not be a proportionate response, whatever one's view of file sharing.

There is no good reason to believe that this will end at copyright enforcement, for example those fond of libel action will no doubt be eyeing this result with interest. One of the most depressing aspects of the case is that is the blocking is to be enacted using the system set up to address the issue of child abuse images on the net. This system was simply not made for a hugely wider remit, and frankly the use of Cleanfeed seems shockingly cynical. Assurances given that it would only ever be used for dealing with this most appalling of crimes now seem hollow.

The judgment also creates serious questions about the direction of the coalition government's internet policy. The much criticised Digital Economy Act continues to be mired in difficulty. It appears that the technical measures of this "three strikes" law will not be implemented until 2013 now. The Department for Culture Media and Sport seems determined to construct a web blocking plan with entertainment industry lobbyists, and courted controversy with secret meetings. Ed Vaizey's very public welcoming of the Newzbin2 result on Twitter puts in real doubt the sincerity of his offer to engage with a range of groups on digital policy.

The film industry has been so impatient for results that it has taken the route of injunctions. It is now Hollywood that is dictating our digital rights agenda, not parliament.