As far as I can see from the rest of the document, the reason why profit motive is clumsily forced into that sentence is because it was argued that the act of posting the link itself was an attempt to increase the site's revenue
because the owners were aware the public would be interested in visiting their webpage linking to the material
because it wasn't authorised for publication anywhere at the time. Hence their decision to draw attention to it with "leaked pics" headline and post-DMCA-takedown followup headlines referring to the copyright holder whilst linking to new copies of the material. In other words they're saying that a publisher that has demonstrated awareness that a particular piece of material is so difficult to find that they can generate extra pageviews and revenue from communicating the fact they have a link to it, they can reasonably be expected to have carried out some checks to the provenance of the linked material. We're talking about a situation where the existence of the link and intimation that it might not be authorised was the subject of a headline, not an entry in a directory or search result. A natural reading of "links are provided without the pursuit of financial gain" is that if the posting of hyperlink(s) to copyrighted material is incidental to the profitability of your site you're probably not in danger of falling foul of that particular directive.
There are other more unambiguous statements acknowledging existing case law which appears to rule out webmasters falling foul of websites' mutability like:
The user makes an act of communication when it intervenes, in full knowledge of the consequences of its action, to give access to a protected work to its customers, and does so, in particular, where, in the absence of that intervention, its customers would not, in principle, be able to enjoy the broadcast work