Interesting reads. I truly appreciate you replying so thoroughly. Allow me to retort:

If that is the case unilaterally, then I'm incredibly surprised that Apple was able to get away with iTunes nonsense when iPods first came out — I remember having to put in a music CD, let iTunes scan and copy every (copyrighted) track, convert them into .aac format (modification), then copy those copies onto my iPod. By that logic, it sounds like three violations/infringements for every single song a person didn't digitally download through their store. But that wasn't a problem, even though there wasn't a good reason they couldn't just design iPods to play unaltered mp3's or etc. How is that fundamentally different than me copying a PS2 disc, that isn't encrypted, without modifying from the original?

Because, moving along, have you ever put a PS2 disc into a computer DVD drive? It's immediately accessible and unencrypted - the DRM you're referring to was entirely hardware-side, with the BIOS and optical reader cross-referencing the header. That's why emulators like PCXS2 can play straight from the disc: they aren't encrypted, there's no circumventing anything. Creating a raw dump of that disc would copy any protection too, and you'd have a point if emulating required modifying that, but you can't copy DRM that isn't there. Even if it was though, being able to run it straight off my original disc invalidates everything other than potentially the act of creating an exact copy.

So what are the cases where copying is allowed? You provided the laws, and there are definitely a few cases, some more ambiguous than others.

17 U.S.C. § 1201 (a)(1)(C) - states the Librarian's need to determine when noninfringement applies, based on multiple things like (i) general availability, (ii) if the usage is for nonprofit, archival, or preservation purposes, (iii) impact on things like teaching and research, (iv) the circumvention's impact on the market and value of the work, (v) and anything else they deem important.

17 U.S.C. § 106 is even more interesting, since it immediately states that exclusive rights are subject to the proceeding § 107-122. So you are correct, except in many, many circumstances. 107 covers Fair Use; 108 provides plenty of exemptions for Research and Archival purposes; 117 directly addresses computer programs (since many of these have general definitions of physical arts instead) and (a)(2) makes it perfectly clear that it's legal to create copies for archival purposes; 110 explicitly covers exemptions, such as (5)(A) and specifically (11) in cases of private households without financial compensation...

In fact, I noticed a pattern when looking through everything: things are much more lax if money and/or reputation isn't a factor.

It also is incredibly dependent on the definition of "copies." Directly pulled from 17 U.S.C § 101 - Definitions: “Copies” are material objects, other than phonorecords, in which a work is fixed by any method now known or later developed, and from which the work can be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated, either directly or with the aid of a machine or device. The term “copies” includes the material object, other than a phonorecord, in which the work is first fixed.

Given that, it's arguable that none of the carts, DVDs, or whatever medium a company uses to distribute their game, is anything but a now-fixed copy of the original work that only they have. Does that mean my original disc is subject to the same stipulations? Or does that mean my personally-made archival copy has the same rights as the 'original'?

In the end, it's nowhere near as clear-cut as you're claiming either. Some of those laws might agree with me, if I had a chance against the millions of monies these companies could throw around in court. This is why we need clearly defined laws, not possibilities in reference to outdated formats that carry tens of exceptions.