> So it wasn't transformative because of the destruction
I mean, the parts of "in order to save storage space" and "The print original was destroyed. One replaced the other." again makes it clear (to me at least) that the destruction is pretty much what sticks out here that makes it "more transformative" (whatever that means) than the previous cited cases.
But yeah, agree that also "didn't distribute the scanned copies" seems to have mattered a great deal, as well as the destruction part.
You have a point... Alsop is saying that the destruction somehow made it "more clearly transformative" (which is not quite the same thing as "more transformative"), so it is something that could potentially impact the outcome.
I think what he is saving you can't argue the point of the scanning was to save space if you didn't destroy the original. And he concluded that "the mere conversion of a print book to a digital file to save space and enable searchability was transformative for that reason alone"
But my point is that you can't assume Anthropic would have lost if they didn't destroy the books. Alsop didn't rule on that, simply because he didn't need to. Judges hate ruling on things they don't need to.
In an alternative history where Antropic put the physical books in a warehouse after scanning, they could have argued the transformation about "minimising storage costs while increasing the easy of access" and IMO they probably would have won with that too.