The author has misread the statute. The notice and the statutory language from which it derives (Title 17, sec. 108 (d) and (e)) are about the conditions under

The author has misread the statute. The notice and the statutory language from which it derives (Title 17, sec. 108 (d) and (e)) are about the conditions under which the library is released from liability for copyright violations. No statement is made about conditions under which the user is released from copyright liability. Each paragraph in 108 lays out various situations under which libraries and archives are permitted to furnish copies without liability (without this, no library would dare). Paragraphs (d) and (e) are the relevant ones (dealing with one component of a larger collection or to an entire work if necessary, respectively). Clause (1) of each paragraph describes a situation where the copy is to become property of the user making the request (so, I walk up to a copy machine, make a copy, and take possession of the copy). In this situation, the library is released from liability if two conditions hold: a) "the library ... has had no notice that the copy ... would be used for any purpose other than private study, scholarship, or research". (Note that this is the source of the quote in the posted notice.) Naturally, that condition holds for self-service copy machines. b) "the library ... displays prominently ... a warning of copyright...". Said warning just recaps 108 (d) and (e). I do not find any lie here.