I'd go so far as to say the article directly contradicts the headline. The author spends an enormous amount of time explaining how the rights of "end users" ha

I'd go so far as to say the article directly contradicts the headline. The author spends an enormous amount of time explaining how the rights of "end users" have been cemented, such as the right to change formats. If a consumer lends a book, they are, by definition, no longer the "end user" and none of that precedent applies. It's probably true that anyone can lend a book but that's not an "end user" right. In fact, that allowance is the very reason libraries can exist in the first place. The case and article are about something completely different (making copies, then distributing the copies). Odd headline.