Re: Here have a can of worms...
Exactly. The article even quotes the part of the decision which says so. The court found compelling statutory and precedent arguments for a ruling even they felt was unfortunate. Corrective legislation is the remedy.
I, for one, am not afraid of the "judicial activism" bugbear; but in a case like this I can't fault the 9th for following the rules. Sometimes laws have failed to keep pace with technological change (even when that change is now a century old).
Fortunately, in this case, we have circuits disagreeing, so there's a chance someone will take a case like this to SCOTUS and they'll hear it. SCOTUS might agree with the 9th, since at first blush their reasoning seems sound; but they might also overturn for the sake of convenience. Wouldn't be the first time.