But in the Sony case, it was the Betamax user who was making an entire copy, for noncommercial purposes, for the purpose of time-shifting, which the court held to be a fair use. Here, Google is making complete copies for commercial purposes, so that its users can make the asserted fair uses of them. Betamax would have been a far different case, I think, if Sony had been running an advertising-supported service where it recorded and sent television programs to consumers who had missed the original broadcast. Since this is a direct infringement case and not a contributory infringement case, the consumers' fair use arguments do not immunize Google's actions. Again, I think it's like MP3.com, where the court held that even assuming MP3.com's customers owned their own copies of the CDs in question, MP3.com still infringed the copyrights by making the copies on its server to begin with.