"The regulators said that the controls were necessary to prevent software piracy and differentiated gaming consoles from smart phones, which legally can be jailbroken:
[T]he record demonstrated that access controls on gaming consoles protect not only the console firmware, but the video games and applications that run on the console as well. The evidence showed that video games are far more difficult and complex to produce than smartphone applications, requiring teams of developers and potential investments in the millions of dollars. While the access controls at issue might serve to further manufacturers’ business interests, they also protect highly valuable expressive works – many of which are created and owned by the manufacturers – in addition to console firmware itself.
On the plus side, the regulators re-authorized jailbreaking of mobile phones."
Source:
-) http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/10/dmca-exemptions-rej...
-) http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4699962
I am aware that this does not fully answer your question, but this is at least their justification.
If you think about it, the traditional PC is one of the - and it's sad to say so - few devices where the hardware really is yours (one could argue that firmware is locked down etc, but i guess everybody knows what i mean).
There are not so many devices left that you can:
-) install custom software on
-) root without great efforts
Game consoles, Tablets, ebook Readers, and Smartphones (no matter if it's legal - still great effort to jailbreak it) - you are locked in everywhere...
Sad future ahead
Now I can - and this is improving.
It's you who doesn't get it. Despite the whole election facade, the government is not working for you or your benefit. It's working for the benefit of a very small minority, that cares not about your freedom, and believes that they are served by enforceable DRM.
There are already laws against piracy. Additional laws covering things merely leading up to that act should not be necessary nor desired.
That sounds like entirely sensible reasoning, so you shouldn't find it surprising that the lawmaking process never considered it.
And before you argue that weapons have no purpose except to break other laws, like jailbreaking there are many lawful or sporting uses of swords, firearms, explosives, etc.
We have laws against murder/assault, and we also have laws against making threats and reckless endangerment which I think should cover the other cases of bad things done with guns.
I'll go further and say that DUI laws are also redundant. Of course we don't want people driving drunk, but all we really need is some case law that establishes drunk driving as endangerment.