I feel like you're being deliberately obtuse here. The law has more nuance than this. Intent matters.

The key phrase is "significant non-infringing use". Shoes are obviously not built specifically to enable people to commit crimes. And most people who use shoes are not using them to commit crimes.

PopcornTime was built specifically to enable copyright infringement. The vast majority of people using PopcornTime do so to gain unauthorized access to copyrighted material.

This bit doesn't even have anything to do with the DMCA. (Regardless, I agree that this particular case is an abuse of the DMCA takedown process.)

I despise our current copyright regime, though perhaps not with the vehemence that you have. But no matter what I wish the state of things would be, this is the law, and this is how judges have interpreted it ever since Napster showed up in their courtrooms (at least).