Yes. As a strong opinion holder in the copyleft philosophy of any and all content, I feel such sites have a right to exist and profit from content as much as the copyright holders (who are not necessarily the creators of said content).

But hey, this is just the opinion of some random dude on the Internet.

If what is and what isn't law was that clear cut, the case wouldn't escalate to the European Court of Justice. Add to that that laws are arbitrarily incoherent and therefore the decision is just one possible interpretation of the law, albeit one that will be upheld.

Using the status quo as the basis of an argument of how things should be isn't very meaningful...

Why shouldn't it, when the host is a much more obvious target?

That the host is breaking the law doesn't mean the site that links to the host isn't breaking it as well.

If it already is accessible to that public, a mere pointer shouldn't be illegal.

It could be counted as advertising illegal activities, which is often illegal, too.

Byebye phonebook