Just days after Amazon filed the complaint in a US court, the Authors Guild, which agreed to the original settlement with Google, issued a statement condemning the web retailer.
The statement was ironically titled 'Amazon accuses someone else of monopolising bookselling', a reference to the company's dominant position in the online retail sector.
"Amazon's hypocrisy is breathtaking," said the Authors Guild, accusing the company of trying to take over the electronic-book market by selling titles at a loss in order to gain market share.
"Eventually, when enough readers are locked in to Amazon's Kindle [e-book reader], everyone in the industry expects Amazon to squeeze publishers and authors," said the Guild. "The results could be devastating for the economics of authorship."
Amazon suggested in its filing that the deal with Google would allow the search giant to monopolise much of the market, and take control of royalties for so-called 'orphan' titles, where no author or estate is present to collect royalties.
By contrast, the Authors Guild suggests that the deal will not give Google any exclusive rights, and will cause many out-of-print books to be reissued.
"The agreement opens new markets, and that's a good thing for readers and authors," it said. "It offers to make millions upon millions of out-of-print books available for free online viewing at 16,500 public library buildings and more than 4,000 colleges and universities, and that's a great thing for readers, students and scholars."
BT wants to make the public switched telephone network history within eight years
Personal data being purloined by third parties via Facebook Login API
MacOS and iOS are better off apart, says CEO Tim Cook
Or they'll no longer be entitled to updates and bug patches