I think it makes a world of a difference who owns the stuff people only borrow. This article is about public libraries, socially funded through a democratic will to do so, to ensure the broadest and most affordable access to anyone, particularly those who couldn't otherwise afford to buy or rent these things. Very similar to informal pools of people lending each other stuff to save money.

The quote you're referring to, or at least that interpretation of it, as I understand it, is about for-profit entities restricting ownership by only renting out their products, maximizing the amount of money they can extract.

Those seem like two almost polar opposites. I'd bet the "owning class" is not very happy about the existence of libraries. (See, for example, Hachette, Wiley, Harper Collins, Penguin Random House & Co.'s legal efforts to get rid of them.)