[AlotOfReading]

Google asserted fair use in that case, which is an admission of (allowed) copyright infringement. They didn't turn books into a "new form", they provided limited excerpts that couldn't replace the original usage and directly incentivized purchases through normal sales channels while also providing new functionality.

Contrast that with AI companies:

They don't necessarily want to assert fair use, the results aren't necessarily publicly accessible, the work used isn't cited, users aren't directed to typical sales channels, and many common usages do meaningfully reduce the market for the original content (e.g. AI summaries for paywalled pages).

It's not obvious to me as a non-lawyer that these situations are analogous, even if there's some superficial similarity.