The fact that the court is even considering this is an indication of deep and profound ignorance on their part. There is no binding at all between URLs and content. A web server can serve different content for the same URL on every single request. In fact, most URLs on the web today are like that.
It's their job to consider this as they were asked to answer that question. In the case we are talking about, the content was the same for every request and the linker knew what they were linking to. They would be doing a pretty bad job if they would not think about whether this fact changes anything for at least some cases.
What you answered may as well be their answer. We have to wait and see.
> In the case we are talking about, the content was the same for every request
But (by my understanding) the court is not ruling narrowly on this particular case, it is ruling broadly on linking to unlicensed content in general.
> and the linker knew what they were linking to.
How do you prove that? In particular, how do you prove that someone who links to a page knew that the page contains unlicensed content at the time they produced the link?
It might be possible to prove it in some very particular circumstances, but how do you prove it in general?
Yes, they are going to answer the question in general including the points you brought up. Just categorically denying any liability for links without thoroughly thinking about those points is shortsighted.
Just because in some cases it would be stupid to rule against the linker doesn't mean that it wouldn't be the right thing in other cases. Saying linking in general should never result in violation of the law because <insert specific situation here where it would be crazy that does not always apply> is disingenuous.
