alt Hacker NewsThe reversing clause doesn't, but the law does.
It's "declared" specifically in the Act, here:
(1)Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (a)(1)(A), a person who has lawfully obtained the right to use a copy of a computer program may circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a particular portion of that program for the sole purpose of identifying and analyzing those elements of the program that are necessary to achieve interoperability of an independently created computer program with other programs, and that have not previously been readily available to the person engaging in the circumvention, to the extent any such acts of identification and analysis do not constitute infringement under this title.
(2)Notwithstanding the provisions of subsections (a)(2) and (b), a person may develop and employ technological means to circumvent a technological measure, or to circumvent protection afforded by a technological measure, in order to enable the identification and analysis under paragraph (1), or for the purpose of enabling interoperability of an independently created computer program with other programs, if such means are necessary to achieve such interoperability, to the extent that doing so does not constitute infringement under this title.
(3)The information acquired through the acts permitted under paragraph (1), and the means permitted under paragraph (2), may be made available to others if the person referred to in paragraph (1) or (2), as the case may be, provides such information or means solely for the purpose of enabling interoperability of an independently created computer program with other programs, and to the extent that doing so does not constitute infringement under this title or violate applicable law other than this section.
Let's say your interpretation holds water even though I, and the EFF in their handbook [https://www.eff.org/pages/unintended-consequences-fifteen-ye...], and the US legal system just a few months ago [https://www.pearlcohen.com/court-upholds-dmcas-anti-circumve...], do not believe is correct. (It's easy to be an armchair lawyer - if you read the first amendment out of context, threatening to kill someone seems protected.)
Nintendo may potentially argue that yes, you are completely right. You have the right to interoperability, in the sense that you are allowed to make a device which physically takes Switch cards, decrypts them, plays them, from the original card, does not copy it to storage media of any kind, and does not allow the user any semblance of a DRM bypass, or any way to resell the original card while maintaining a copy. Interoperability is for building CD players, not CD rippers.
EDIT TO REPLY FOR "POSTING TOO FAST": Section 117 is very clever, except there's one problem: It was created in 1980, before the DMCA. Thus, if there is a conflict between the DMCA and Section 117, the DMCA is likely to receive the benefit of the doubt. As such, Section 117 is only effective for demonstrating the legality of copying non encrypted programs, or (as an actual lawyer put it), copying a program with the DRM remaining intact, as useless as that is.
Combine my point about interoperability in the courtroom + Section 117 likely being overruled by Section 1201 of the later DMCA which is extremely restrictive on bypassing "technological protection measures" copied or not, and it's not a clear win.