Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/12pdf/11-697_d1o2.pdf
Page Number: 55.0

14 

KIRTSAENG v. JOHN WILEY & SONS, INC. 

GINSBURG, J., dissenting 

in  the  United  States  . . .  is  prohibited.”).    The  Copyright
Office  originally  recommended  against  such  an  extension 
of  the  importation  ban,  reasoning  that  enforcement  of 
territorial restrictions was best left to contract law.  Copy­
right Law Revision 126.

Publishing-industry representatives argued strenuously 

against  the  position  initially  taken  by  the  Copyright  Of­
fice.  At a 1962 panel discussion on the Copyright Office’s
report, for example, Horace Manges of the American Book 
Publishers Council stated: 

“When  a  U. S.  book  publisher  enters  into  a  contract
with  a  British  publisher  to  acquire  exclusive  U. S. 
rights  for  a  particular  book,  he  often  finds  that  the 
English  edition  . . .  of  that  particular  book  finds  its 
way into this country.  Now it’s all right to say, ‘Com­
mence  a  lawsuit  for  breach  of  contract.’  But  this  is 
expensive,  burdensome,  and,  for  the  most  part,  inef­
fective.”  Copyright  Law  Revision  Part  2:  Discussion 
and  Comments  on  Report  of  the  Register  of  Copy­
rights on the General Revision of the U. S. Copyright
Law,  88th  Cong.,  1st  Sess.,  212  (H. R.  Judiciary
Comm. Print 1963). 

Sidney  Diamond,  representing  London  Records,  elabo­
rated on Manges’ statement.  “There are many situations,”
he  explained,  “in  which  it  is  not  necessarily  a  question of 
the inadequacy of a contract remedy—in the sense that it 
may be difficult or not quick enough to solve the particular
problem.”  Id., at 213.  “Very frequently,” Diamond stated,
publishers  “run  into  a  situation  where  . . .  copies  of  [a]
work . . . produced in a foreign country . . . may be shipped 
[to the United States] without violating any contract of the 
U. S.  copyright  proprietor.”    Ibid.   To  illustrate,  Diamond 
noted, if a “British publisher [sells a copy] to an individual 
who in turn ship[s] it over” to the United States, the indi­
vidual’s conduct would not “violate [any] contract between