Wow, that's a big leap!
CBS.com is available to Americans, but some Americans were/are blocked from streaming content due to the Time Warner vs CBS battle.
If those blocked Americans use a VPN or other trickery to stream content from the CBS website, what's CBS going to do? Threaten to sue them? Nonsense!
Canadians don't have access to CBS.com without the use of a VPN or other trickery, but again, what's CBS going to do, to legally
stop us? Absolutely nothing!
VPNs will have to be outlawed, the users' VPN logs will have to be accessed and then some folks can be taken to court, or at least be scared into a settlement.
When's that going to happen in North America? 2017? 2020? Never?
More likely, the majority of websites will require some sort of cable/satellite subscription key to access various content, which will make it a bit tougher for foreigners to gain access to the content.
Canadian Prisoner A: Hey babe, what are you in for?
Canadian Prisoner B: I streamed Grey's Anatomy from ABC.com instead of CTV.ca.
Canadian Prisoner A: You're a dumb blonde! Why didn't you just pay the fine?
Canadian Prisoner B: I tried to, but my husband cleaned out our joint account before I had a chance to pay.
Canadian Prisoner A: No worries, babe. I'll be your new husband. Besides, haven't you heard? Orange is the new black.
Even the article you posted notes that normal internet-surfing behaviour shouldn't be affected by this ruling:
The judge added that he believes the decision isn’t going to penalize normal internet-surfing behavior:
Nor does prohibiting people from accessing websites they have been banned from threaten to criminalize large swaths of ordinary behavior. It is uncommon to navigate contemporary life without purportedly agreeing to some cryptic private use policy governing an employer’s computers or governing access to a computer connected to the internet. In contrast, the average person does not use “anonymous proxies” to bypass an IP block set up to enforce a banning communicated via personally-addressed cease-and-desist letter.
[Masking IP address a no-no ... But who's going to sue Joe Average?]
In short, this is a decision applying only to a narrow, specific circumstance.
Hanni M. Fakhoury, staff attorney for the EFF, disagrees with the decision, "The court held that since everyone is 'authorized' to access a publicly accessible website under the CFAA, a party (here Craigslist) has to prove that this authorization was somehow revoked. In this case, the court said Craigslist's act of blocking 3Taps IP address and the cease and desist letter were enough to 'revoke' the authorization. We disagree that IP address blocking is a sufficient type of technological circumvention to prove 'access with authorization' under the CFAA since (1) its common and easy to mask your IP address; and (2) there are legitimate reasons to do so."
But could this decision affect you and your use of such IP masking technologies?
Fakhoury replied, "As to whether it would impact other technologies like Tor, etc., the decision doesn't criminalize those steps in isolation. The opinion only says that if you use one of these techniques to work around the revocation of your access, there's a CFAA claim." So, while not a correct decision, it's still rather narrow in its potential application.