You’re correct, but they were found not to be infringing because the courts said it was non commercial fair use, under this reasoning (https://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/17/business/media/googles-di...):
> “The purpose of the copying is highly transformative, the public display of text is limited, and the revelations do not provide a significant market substitute for the protected aspects of the originals,” Judge Pierre N. Leval of the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit wrote, explaining the court’s decision.
This is a dissimilar situation. The books are being scanned for personal use, the whole book is viewable, and money is changing hands. The best argument for fair use might be that the customer still has to buy a copy of the physical book, so the digital copy service isn’t necessarily eating away at the book publishers sales — though, the fact that they bought used undercuts that a little.
You seem to have me confused with someone else (such as the author, maybe—i.e. the person who injected the comparison to Google Books and wrote the part I quoted in my previous comment); except for the first two words in your comment, your reply doesn't make sense as a response to what I wrote here.