If you do not like the GPL or agree to its terms, and still use the software covered under it, then you are breaking copyright because there is no other license agreement you can call upon. Once you agree to the terms, then you are contractually bound because you, well, agreed to the terms. The point taken here by the judge is that, once you download the software covered under the GPL, and distribute it, you implicitly agree to the terms of the GPL, thereby binding yourself contractually.
It is the genius of the GPL's formulation that allows this interpretation. If you do not like it, don't use the software. If you want it, you must abide by the rules. As simple as that. The GPL's philosophical debate(*) is a distraction to its pure genius to use a protective - as in nobody may touch me - law to achieve an - anybody may use me - result (hence copy-right becomes copy-left).
(*) Not that the philosophical debate is unimportant, just not relevant for this particular use of the software.