>he law should have teeth and should say that DRM is actually illegal, or at the very least that circumventing it is legal.

They law literally emboldened DRM. We'll see if the politics of the next generation changes that, but I don't see it happening in my lifetime that the US will just allow the consumer to legally copy software that does not want to be copied by the individual.

>encryption never expires and does not care if it would save someones life to use some product in some unusual situation, so, it should either be illegal to sell an encrypted audiobook that can never be decrypted even 100 years later when it is public domain, or at the very least, if it is to be legal to produce such a thing, then the trade-off is it is at least legal for anyone else to try to overcome it.

If encryption was that vacuum tight, we wouldn't see constant progress in cryptography. It's the generation ship paradox: what may take us 100 years to break with currently known knowledge may take someone next decade a month.