Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/12pdf/11-697_d1o2.pdf
Page Number: 53

12 

KIRTSAENG v. JOHN WILEY & SONS, INC. 

GINSBURG, J., dissenting 

§7.6.1.2(a),  at  7:141.9   But  if,  as  the  Court  holds,  such 
copies  can  in  any  event  be  imported  by  virtue  of  §109(a), 
§602(a)(3)’s  work  has  already  been  done.  For  example,
had  Congress  conceived  of  §109(a)’s  sweep  as  the  Court 
does,  what  earthly  reason  would  there  be  to  provide,  as 
Congress  did  in  §602(a)(3)(C),  that  a  library  may  import 
“no more than five copies” of a non-audiovisual work for its 
“lending or archival purposes”? 

The  far  more  plausible  reading  of  §§109(a)  and  602(a),
then, is that Congress intended §109(a) to apply to copies
made  in  the  United  States,  not  to  copies  manufactured 
and sold abroad.  That reading of the first sale and impor­
tation  provisions  leaves  §602(a)(3)’s  exceptions  with  real,
meaningful  work  to  do.    See  TRW  Inc.  v.  Andrews,  534 
U. S. 19, 31 (2001) (“It is a cardinal principle of statutory 
construction that a statute ought, upon the whole, to be so 
construed  that,  if  it  can  be  prevented,  no  clause,  sen­
tence, or word shall be superfluous, void, or insignificant.”
(internal quotation marks omitted)).  In the range of circum-
stances  covered  by  the  exceptions,  §602(a)(3)  frees  indi­
viduals  and  entities  who  purchase  foreign-made  copies 
abroad  from  the  requirement  they  would  otherwise  face
under  §602(a)(1)  of  obtaining  the  copyright  owner’s  per­
mission to import the copies into the United States.10 

—————— 

9 The term “gray market good” refers to a good that is “imported out­
side  the  distribution  channels  that  have  been  contractually  negotiated 
by  the  intellectual  property  owner.”    Forsyth  &  Rothnie,  Parallel 
Imports,  in  The  Interface  Between  Intellectual  Property  Rights  and
Competition  Policy  429  (S.  Anderman  ed.  2007).    Such  goods  are  also 
commonly called “parallel imports.”  Ibid. 

10 The  Court  asserts  that  its  reading  of  §109(a)  is  bolstered  by  §104, 
which extends the copyright “protection[s]” of Title 17 to a wide variety 
of foreign works.  See ante, at 10–11.  The “protection under this title” 
afforded  by  §104,  however,  is  merely  protection  against  infringing
conduct within the United States, the only place where Title 17 applies.
See  4  W.  Patry,  Copyright  §13:44.10,  pp. 13–128  to  13–129  (2012)
(hereinafter Patry).  Thus, my reading of the phrase “under this title” in