(Disclaimer: I don't know the first word about law)
But I have been thinking about this quite a lot recently (mostly because I get angry at the power states sometimes have over individuals). Would the distinction really matter in this case?. I would think that in a "civil law" contry things could be even worse for the aggressor
It depends on the law in question. Civil law typically requires that the plaintiff's cause of action and desired remedy be defined in the relevant code or statute. This doesn't mean the average person is powerless; every civil code I know of will let you file a lawsuit for breach of contract, for example. I have no knowledge at all of Spanish law, though, so I have no idea who has grounds to sue whom and under what code. If a similar situation happened the US, you'd probably file a lawsuit against Cloudflare, the ISPs, and the relevant sports league and sort it out in court.
You would do the same in a civil law country, sue the sports league and ISP. State that an "unlawful act" happened (blocking your service) and claim damages due to loss of traffic and the extra work it caused you.
But is it actually an unlawful act? A judge decreed that La Liga can demand the blockage of certain IPs. La Liga demanded the blockage of certain IPs. Does the fact that it had an unintended consequence on others somehow make it illegal?
It doesn't have to be an unlawful act. You can recover damages for a lawful act.
Here's France, the Platonic embodiment of European civil law:
> To get damages, you must compile a file that gathers all the elements that make it possible to determine that your damage is compensable
> You must demonstrate that you are the victim of harm: [snip]
> In order for your damage to be repaired, you must also determine:
> - A fault, negligence or infringement committed by another person
> - And that your injury occurred as a result of that fault, negligence or breach.
> Example :
> A person walking down the street hits you because he is looking at his phone. You fall and you break your arm. So you are suffering bodily harm that was caused by the negligence of the person who shoved you. It was precisely this negligence that led to your damage, because if the person did not hit you, you would not have fallen. You can therefore ask him for damages.
Judges aren't perfect and just because they decree something, doesn't mean that the remedy implemented by the ISPs isn't also a violation of some law or regulation. Normally this would be handled by yet another court case, possibly going to a higher court to decide if there are contradictions or conflicts.
The law is no stranger to "damned if you do, damned if you don't" scenarios.
Do they not have a charge of "tortious interference with business" in civil law like in common law? It's where one company just goes out of their way to fuck up your business for no good reason.
But I have been thinking about this quite a lot recently (mostly because I get angry at the power states sometimes have over individuals). Would the distinction really matter in this case?. I would think that in a "civil law" contry things could be even worse for the aggressor