It does extend to music. However, you’re usually not going to get any educational benefit from listening to a small snippet of a song. Whereas you might with a chapter of a book. Therefore, again to me and me only, the educational exemption is harder to use in terms of music.
Yes, I understand that it may still have copyright protection. My comment was directed specifically to the idea that you are “denying a sale” to the copyright owner. If they do not have copies available for sale, and have no intention of making copies available for sale in the future, then it’s hard to allege any actual economic detriment to the copyright holder. However, I agree completely that this fact does not give one the legal right to make copies.
As an academic, I have occasionally made copies of books obtained through interlibrary loan for my own research use. These have always been obscure out-of-print volumes, some of which have not even been available through on-line used booksellers, or else cost several hundreds or even thousands of dollars. Personally, copying a book like this is a major hassle. I’d rather have the book itself, and I first try to purchase one new or used, if it can be obtained. But this is sometimes just not possible.
I agree with everything you say. I just don’t know that the law does. 
The tricky thing about copyright is that it’s really about balancing the rights of users versus the rights of the copyright holders. Without knowing extremely detailed specifics of any given situation copyright law gets really densely foggy almost immediately.
Don’t even get me started on that subject. My wife chairs a school board, and people are screaming for new football uniforms when the school can’t afford to replace 12-year-old American history books. Gee, nothing’s changed in the U.S. in the last 12 years, has it? :rolleyes:
I don’t write textbooks, although a couple of my books are used as texts. Typically, though, you don’t find a lot of textbooks in the library, which is what the OP was talking about. They want you to buy your own copy of the textbook, not check one out free from the library.
Oh, and just for the record, your outrageous tuition has nothing whatsoever to do with the price of your books. When your college ups your tuition, none of that money is going to the guy that wrote your textbook.
I was following your argument right up to the end. It benefits the artists when you pirate (steal) copies of their songs? What do you do, mail them a donation?
That last word is the key to the whole issue: owner. If I write a book, I have the right to make copies, and the right to stop making copies. If I choose to stop selling the book for whatever reason, you do not have the right to start making your own copies.
I’ll give you an example. I wrote a technical book in the 90s and self-published it. A couple of years ago, I was considering doing a 2nd edition to bring it up-to-date. Then a major publisher offered to give me a contract for a new book on the same subject, but only if I let the old one go out of print so it wouldn’t be competing with my new one. I agreed, so the old one is no longer available. That does not, under any circumstances, mean that you can go make your own copies.
Having read through this entire thread, here’s how I’d play it. Of course, IANAL.
Whether there is or is not an exemption is highly circumstance dependant. A rational actor (such as your friend) can reasonably suspect that the request made did not pass muster. In such a case, I’d argue that it falls to the library administration to prove its assertion that this copying would be covered by the exemption. If they wrote her up because she wouldn’t take their bare say-so on the matter, they’re wrong to call it insubordination. If they showed – not just said – that it was exempt, then she is being insubordinate to refuse their evidence.