I. INTRODUCTION
The Copyright Act endows copyright holders the “‘exclusive’ rights to use and to authorize the use of his work in five qualified ways, including reproduction of the copyrighted work in copies”. Such act provides the copyright owner potential remedy in such a way that they are able to request an injunction, the destruction of reproduced product and additional damages or profits obtained from the infringement of such rights. The Copyright Act does not render individuals responsible for the acts of another as long as there is no knowledge or contribution towards a violation, the law clearly states, "one who, with knowledge of the infringing activity, induces, causes or materially contributes to the infringing conduct of another, may be held liable as a 'contributory' infringer." This is to say that if such party was providing individuals with the ability to violate copyright laws and they were fully aware that such activity could take place they are equally responsible for the infringement. Within the context of the Sony Corporation v Universal City Studio, Inc. the ability that Sony was allotting to their clients by being providing theim a mechanism that would intergrate to their existing home entertainment system and be able to record programs from their home without the need of additional services from a third party made Sony indirectly liable for the copyright infringements. Furthermore the statutes within the 1976 Copyright Act does not make an exemption to individuals that believed that such infringements were legal. They too are held liable for such infringements, baring they were “not aware and had no reason to believe that his or her acts constituted an infringement of copyright". Of the allowable reproductions that the law allows for private use, the only allowable reproductions under section 108 of the Copyright Act are those that are done