My post on The Authors Guild website is apparently not Twitter-friendly: http://www.authorsguild.

org/advocacy/authors-orphan-works-reply-the-libraries-and-google-haveno-right-to-roll-the-dice-with-the-worlds-literary-property/
One of my favorite comments so far in the HathiTrust case is a footnote in the amicus brief filed on behalf of the American Association of People with Disabilities (Doc 138) where it says at footnote 16 Page 17: "As the HDL and NFB explain, Congress also enacted Section 121 of the Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. 121, to clarify that efforts to make books accessible to patrons with disabilities are non-infringing." This was a footnote to the statement on page 17: "Fortunately, Congress has harmonized copyright and accessibility law by recognizing that making copyrighted works accessible for people with disabilities is a non-infringing fair use." In his Senate floor comments upon the introduction of Section 121, the late Senator Chafee made no remarks as to how his drafted amendment might 'clarify' or even address fair use; quite the contrary, he made the remark that even subsequent to the Copyright Act of 1976, The Library of Congress itself was still required to obtain permission from publishers before making any accessible renditions of copyrighted works. To me this smacks of the old legal chestnut: It takes a lawyer to know -- contrary to what he actually said -- what was the actual intent of a dead man.