If I were an author and someone was distributing extracts of my book with pointers about who wrote it and how it can be obtained, I'd be very happy.
While we're dealing in hypotheticals, may I suggest that if you were an author, you might understand that not all authors are motivated solely by financial gain? Indeed, some might - for whatever reason - wish to see Fair Use exemptions restricted to use by actual people, and not by an automated system.
My own publications to date are all non-fiction, and I don't have any specific reservations about Google excerpting them willy-nilly. But if I published a novel, I'd much prefer the excerpts online to be the ones I chose (and reviewers and critics, etc, chose), not the ones the Great Googly Overlords decided were appropriate.
Personally, I think Chin's interpretation of the fair-use provisions of USC 17 are rather a stretch from what Congress intended. Well, whatever; interpretation is part of the role of the judiciary, and I'm certainly no intentionalist. But this interpretation is far from "obvious", regardless of what various Reg commentators claim. (Of course, people are fond of labeling their opinion as obvious when they aren't capable of constructing a real argument, or are too lazy to do so.)