OK, probably it's better to rephrase the question, since copyright law and fair use concept predate DMCA. Why DMCA didn't include provisions of being not applicable in cases of fair use from the copyright law perspective?
The point of fair use is obvious - to limit copyright restrictions for sensible use cases (like personal use, accessibility and so on). Comes along DMCA and claims that cases covered by fair use are illegal. Was it the intention all along, or it was a sneaky way to do it? Can't DMCA be challenged on this grounds as being invalid as is?
Isn't DMCA unconstitutional as is? It restricts free speech rights.
But my question was not about it being directly unconstitutional (which I think it is). It was about it being nonsensical in the light of fair use (as the other commenter brought above about forbidding to look to the right before making a turn).
You just said that DMCA is separate from copyright and thus fair use doesn't apply to it conceptually. So DMCA is not related to right to establish exclusive rights to works and etc. And it restricts the free speech. So why is it not unconstitutional? (See https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100402/1856128861.shtml
The point of fair use is obvious - to limit copyright restrictions for sensible use cases (like personal use, accessibility and so on). Comes along DMCA and claims that cases covered by fair use are illegal. Was it the intention all along, or it was a sneaky way to do it? Can't DMCA be challenged on this grounds as being invalid as is?