I agree, and apparently this distinction is legally relevant. However, it does not change my point that the CDL also has the property that:
"if a book is in high demand in a library, you'd either have to wait your turn or purchase one yourself to avoid the lending queue."
Right. I'd like a system where that distinction matters but it seems plain how the courts will arrive at a conclusion that it doesn't, because the law is about the mechanism more than it is about the intent. Still, we were all holding on to a fig leaf of an argument that the intent would control here, and IA has burnt that leaf up, at least in NY, CT, and VT.