The law allows people to circumvent copy protection to access works they are entitled to access. There is also a provision against sharing copy protection breaking methods.
I never interpreted them as clashing, merely that I can't knowingly share copy breaking mechanisms with people who are unauthorized to use a work. If they do clash then you have to side with the consumer.
> The law allows people to circumvent copy protection to access works they are entitled to access.
Claiming that such an allowance exists is not the same as actually identifying the statute or ruling that creates the allowance. What is your textual basis for claiming that there's a general permission for circumvention?
> If they do clash then you have to side with the consumer.
This sounds like you're referring to a concept that exists in contract law, but has no applicability to a question of how to handle a conflict between two provisions in law. In such a case, the courts will usually uphold whichever provision actually exists in the text of the law.
Have you actually read the law you're discussing? It was in the first amendment to the DMCA, because they realized they can't prevent people from accessing things they paid for.
I can't actually find the thing I am looking for. AFAIR the Cornell law site does not have the updated version that I need to reference, but you can see by the exemptions granted they are just codifying your rights to continue to use a work, even if it is not necessarily obsolete, if the copy protection has gotten in your way.
To actually change this rightsholders would have to lease works instead of selling them, but they still use the word "sell" when interacting with consumers.
I recently spoke with someone who helped write some of those exceptions and he said that they were a result of lobbying, including his lobbying, not that legislators added them for fear of having the statute thrown out by the courts.
> I can't actually find the thing I am looking for. AFAIR the Cornell law site does not have the updated version that I need to reference, but you can see by the exemptions granted they are just codifying your rights to continue to use a work, even if it is not necessarily obsolete, if the copy protection has gotten in your way.
The exemptions are issued by the Library of Congress and don't become part of the statutory text.
It's true that user advocates have argued that fair use is required by the first amendment and cited some text in Eldred for that proposition, and it's true that proponents of the DMCA have argued that fair use is accommodated by the exceptions and exemptions. Still, proponents of the DMCA have never admitted that the DMCA would be unconstitutional without those exceptions, nor that the DMCA is unconstitutional if those exceptions don't work or don't protect users' rights adequately.
