You don't want to lose sight of the fact that he's using this argument to support an injunction; what he's doing isn't quite as benign as saying "all existing laws should apply", because the existing laws don't promise preliminary injunctions in every case where technology butts up against copyright.

On the other than, this is a case involving a product that has no purpose other than the one that the content producers say directly infringe their rights; in other words, it is at first blush a better than average candidate for an injunction.

But then back on the other hand, he's making general points, not points narrowly tailored to cases like Aereo.