Many thanks to javabird and geertm for the links. 
I really wish publishers would realize that there are a great many of us who buy only books that we have either read ourselves or that readers whose opinions we trust have recommended. In my case, one of the readers I trust is the head librarian of our local library, who could probably retire now if only she had made a commission on every book she's "sold" over the years. It never fails to amaze me that publishers insist on an antagonistic relationship with the very institutions that strive to promote the culture of reading.
That said, I do wonder if the limited-lending model for most mass market works is as horrific an idea as it seems to be. I admit that I'm using a DTB example here, but, when a popular title is first published, our library often buys 5 - 10 copies in order to keep the waiting lists down to realistic levels. Then, a year or two later, a decision is made as to how many of the copies to keep in the permanent collection. The others end up in the "friends of the library" sale, where they are lucky to bring a price one-tenth that of their original cost. With this in mind, would it be so awful for a publisher to offer a tiered license system, with "limited" and "permanent" options?
In fact, since (except in the case of a modern classic) most books make the lion's share of their revenue soon after publication, wouldn't it actually make sense, from a publishers' standpoint, to offer the "limited" licenses first, and at a higher price, and then offer the "permanent" license later, when the book is going off list and/or libraries are adding to their permanent collections?
I know I'm playing the devil's advocate here. I would also be the first to offer the opinion that, in general, publishers would shoot themselves in the foot intentionally if they weren't being too shortsighted to take proper aim. 
But I also have trouble just leaping on the "Oh noes! Publishers are teh ebil!" bandwagon.
