> except specific, delineated purposes and cases which must be approved and reapproved by the Librarian of Congress every 3 years;

1201(c)(1) says:

> Nothing in this section shall affect rights, remedies, limitations, or defenses to copyright infringement, including fair use, under this title.

Wouldn't that apply to DMCA 1201(a)(1) - the part that bans circumvention of copy protection? i.e. since there's US[0] caselaw in favor of format-shifting[1], it's probably still legal to format shift DRM-encumbered material, even if it's illegal to tell people how to do that.

Regardless, you probably don't need to tell people - or at least, private citizens not fearing prosecution from Nintendo for unrelated matters - not to dump their own games, because it's extremely unlikely for anyone to ever get caught doing so. Dumping your own games and running them in an emulator leaves little evidence. In fact, that's why DMCA 1201(a)(2) has no exceptions. DMCA exists to take copying tools away from people who are not legible to copyright holders.

[0] The biggest split between US and UK copyright law is actually just format-shifting. In the UK it's not only illegal to format-shift, but a law to legalize it was struck down on the basis that copyright holders need to be paid for lost sales of the same work in a different format.

[1] RIAA v. Diamond, which notably overcame the Audio Home Recording Act, an even more draconian law on digital music recording technology that mandated specific DRM systems on all digital recordings.