Despite the grandstanding by those who "won," the statement by the court is not really an "overturning" of the BetaMax precedent:

"We hold that one who distributes a device with the object of promoting its use to infringe copyright ... is liable for the resulting acts of infringement by third parties."

This leaves a clear challenge to any suit that does not clearly demonstrate the intent to promote a program or device based on it's suitability for an illegal purpose. The implication is that the Court believed that the maker of this software took some action to promote the illegal use of the program, and that legal uses in this case didn't outweigh the illegal ones.

A product that has legitimate and legal uses, and that is sold for such legal use, likely cannot be held liable under this ruling if someone exerts significant effort (like getting instructions from a Blog) to convert the product to an individual illegal use. ...But of course we'll need to see the full text of the decision to make any real evaluation of effects.

John