In terms of legality – copyright holders can put significant license restrictions on downstream use (e.g., library loans), but efforts to do so aren’t always effective.  The courts have developed a set of factors to determine whether any given transfer of a copy constitutes a “sale” or actually a “license.” If it’s actually a “sale” then the “first sale” doctrine applies and copyright law doesn’t restrict further transfer, lending, or sale.

For example, in UMG Recordings v. Augusto, UMG sent out promotional CDs with the following text on a sticker that came with it:

This CD is the property of the record company and is licensed to the intended recipient for personal use only. Acceptance of this CD shall constitute an agreement to comply with the terms of the license. Resale or transfer of possession is not allowed and may be punishable under federal and state laws.

Augusto sold a bunch of these copies on eBay and UMG sued. The court said that downstream distribution did not constitute copyright infringement in violation of the license because the initial distribution constituted a sale (transfer) of the CD, and therefore the “first sale” doctrine applied.  Among the factors that the court looked at in that case were 1) whether the license was designated as a “license”, 2) whether  the purported license reserved title in the copy to the original owner, and 3) whether it required eventual return of the copy to the owner. Ultimately, it was looking for whether UMG still held “sufficient incidents of ownership” to “sensibly be considered the owner of the copies,” or whether in fact ownership of the CDs had been transferred.  

In this case, the text that The Chronicle includes does call itself a “license” but… it seems to me, that’s about all The Chronicle has going for it to assert that these print copies are actually just “licensed” and not sold to libraries. CHE isn’t otherwise asserting continued physical title over the copies sold, or requiring eventual return of the copies, and (aside from the restriction on distribution) isn’t making any other meaningful restrictions on uses of the copies.