So he's saying that we should have exactly what we always had? New technologies were never exempt from following copyright law.
What he's really saying is that he doesn't like that some technologies are actually legal (like Aereo), not because they're new, but because they fall under fair use conditions. And so he wants to kill them by making them "illegal until proven legal".
That is what I think he's saying. I know, it's disappointing when it's not rage worthy. (And if I'm wrong and it is rage worthy, is there any point to reading about it besides getting all ragey?)
As for Aereo, I like what they're doing (and wish it were available in more places), but even so, I think they're navigating a fine line between the letter and the spirit of the law.
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.
What he's really saying is that he doesn't like that some technologies are actually legal (like Aereo), not because they're new, but because they fall under fair use conditions. And so he wants to kill them by making them "illegal until proven legal".