I'm not sure you are correct. The court itself said the term was ambiguous and undefined by the legislation. Claiming that a change from an earlier interpretation is "only strictly interpreting the text of the law as written" does not, therefore, seem a valid statement.
OTOH, it may well be easily within a reasonable interpretation of the law as written. But the summary didn't present an argument that the earlier interpretation isn't also within a reasonable interpretation of the law as written..it just said the judges felt it was too lenient. Not the same thing at all.
This is, however, another good reason why the DMCA should be repealed. So should the previous copyright act (the Sony Bono copyright act). Actually, I think that should be repealed all the way back until the term of the copyright was 17 years, and even that had severe problems. Most copyrights should be valid for no longer than 5 years, though if there are excessive upfront costs a case could be made for extending the term to 10 years.