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.
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.
Full text of 1201 here: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/1201. Note the many exemptions. You could just call it encryption research. You also need to look at the list of exemptions granted by the library of congress, which is quite extensive: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Millennium_Copyright_A....
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.
