Law is not objective ideology sitting in context-free space. Law is ideology applied, and that very application made explicit. A law defines the very context it exists in.

So we can't just objectively ignore the failure of a law being applied, because a better application of that law must be defined in that law.

Even if a law defines a reasonable ideological mapping (expected behavior), it still needs to define a reasonable application of that mapping.

If, in practice, we see a law being abused, then the solution must be to change that law such that it isn't abusable anymore.

DMCA is an extreme failure, not in defining expected behavior per se, but in defining the domain for implementing behavior. The way DMCA is put into practice circumvents the very ideological behaviors it defined as its expectations, in nearly every case it is applied to.

A version of DMCA that "isn't shitty" would be incapable of such overt and widespread abuse. Clearly the version we have does not meet that criteria.