Ok, we've appended a question mark to the title, which is a trick we sometimes use to mitigate questionable titles (on otherwise interesting articles).
Edit: ok, not.
Edit: ok, not.
Maybe:
[?]
or
*?*
The grammar is bothering me.
Thanks for your moderation either way.
Charitably, I could maybe see how the library's notice might cause confusion to someone who only skims it. However, upon close reading, it's very clear that they first talk about the conditions the library is bound by in order to use the authorization under §108, and then talk about individual liability if the individual exceeds fair use under §107.
In my view, both their summary of §108 and their reference to §107 are cogent and neither is false. As a result, I believe it's incorrect to say that they are lying (and I believe the question mark should have remained).
IAALBIANAIPL