I understand the Court has some role in determining intention, but the nature of the technology in the background is crucial in determining whether it violates

I understand the Court has some role in determining intention, but the nature of the technology in the background is crucial in determining whether it violates the law. I'm confused about the implications of the ruling. Would this ruling find me liable if I created "dumb pipe" rented antennas streamed online, like Aereo, if I didn't make it an express goal of the service to watch television? Or say, a filesharing service which has plausible deniability (like client-side encryption) and no expressed intentions for its use to violate the Copyright Act, but that can incidentally be used by consumers to do so? Could the court simply call those kinds of services/software "technological obfuscation" and consider it forbidden? (I believe the court has strayed toward this argument in Grokster and other cases unfortunately.) If so, I can't make a fair, fundamental distinction between that and any other cloud-like service. Devoting a section to "distinctions" to make lower-court precedent messier cheats a proper interpretation of the facts and will create ambiguity. I really hope I'm misunderstanding this!