Yes, although I have my gripes with IA, I fully support the CDL model, and I think there is strong legal justification for it.
The inherent differences the publishers list -- the speed at which ebooks can be lent, the fact that they don't physically degrade, and that they must be read on a device -- are real, but they don't strike me as relevant to the actual legal principle that governs library lending. The first-sale doctrine holds that if you purchase a creative work, you can lend or resell it, and doing so does not violate an author's copyright. Even if there are real differences in how ebooks and physical books are transferred, maintained, and read, I don't see why those differences are material to the first-sale doctrine's granting owners of creative works the right to lend them.
That's not how the first sale doctrine works, nor is it how it has ever worked.
In a nutshell: the first sale doctrine merely means that if someone comes into legitimate possession of a physical good containing IP, they are free to sell or otherwise exploit the physical good without requiring a license for the IP contained therein.
Crucially, the first sale doctrine does not extend to exploiting the IP itself, so if the IP is separated from the physical good (such as by recording or scanning a copy), the first sale doctrine no longer applies.
The first sale doctrine does not apply at all to library lending programs. Libraries providing digital lending pursuant to explicit licenses provided by publishers for digital lending.
The inherent differences the publishers list -- the speed at which ebooks can be lent, the fact that they don't physically degrade, and that they must be read on a device -- are real, but they don't strike me as relevant to the actual legal principle that governs library lending. The first-sale doctrine holds that if you purchase a creative work, you can lend or resell it, and doing so does not violate an author's copyright. Even if there are real differences in how ebooks and physical books are transferred, maintained, and read, I don't see why those differences are material to the first-sale doctrine's granting owners of creative works the right to lend them.