The difference is subtle > One of these specified conditions is that the photocopy or reproduction is not to be “used for any purpose other than private study,

The difference is subtle > One of these specified conditions is that the photocopy or reproduction is not to be “used for any purpose other than private study, scholarship, or research.” "[I]s not to be used for any purpose other than" sounds very restrictive. However the language from the statute is the opposite > The fair use of a copyrighted work, ... for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. This sounds like the opposite. A list of times when fair use is OK. The article could benefit from further discussion of this subtle distinction, as a librarian I think the writer assumes we already know exactly why this message is incorrect. From my interpretation the message seems to "remove" several of the examples in the statute from the message, for instance news reporting. I think that is the concern here, along with the mandate that libraries then promulgate this subtle misinformation.