Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/12pdf/11-697_d1o2.pdf
Page Number: 61

20 

KIRTSAENG v. JOHN WILEY & SONS, INC. 

GINSBURG, J., dissenting 

to  control  distribution  of  a  particular  copy  is  exhausted 
only  within  the  country  in  which  the  copy  is  sold.  See 
Forsyth  &  Rothnie,  Parallel  Imports,  in  The  Interface 
Between  Intellectual  Property  Rights  and  Competition 
Policy  429,  430  (S.  Anderman  ed.  2007)  (hereinafter
Forsyth & Rothnie).  Another option is a rule of international 
exhaustion,  under  which  the  authorized  distribution  of  a 
particular copy anywhere in the world exhausts the copy­
right  owner’s  distribution  right  everywhere  with  respect
to that copy.  See ibid.  The European Union has adopted 
the  intermediate  approach  of  regional  exhaustion,  under 
which  the  sale  of  a  copy  anywhere  within  the  European 
Economic  Area  exhausts  the  copyright  owner’s  distribu­
tion  right  throughout  that  region.    See  id.,  at  430,  445. 
Section  602(a)(1),  in  my  view,  ties  the  United  States  to  a
national-exhaustion framework.  The Court’s decision, in con- 
trast, places the United States solidly in the international­
exhaustion camp.

Strong arguments have been made both in favor of, and 
in opposition to, international exhaustion.  See Chiappetta 
360  (“[r]easonable  people  making  valid  points  can,  and 
do,  reach  conflicting  conclusions”  regarding  the  desirability 
of  international  exhaustion).    International  exhaustion 
subjects  copyright-protected  goods  to  competition  from
lower  priced  imports  and,  to  that  extent,  benefits  con- 
sumers.  Correspondingly,  copyright  owners  profit  from  a 
national-exhaustion regime, which also enlarges the mon­
etary  incentive  to  create  new  copyrightable  works.  See 
Forsyth & Rothnie 432–437 (surveying arguments for and 
against international exhaustion).

Weighing  the  competing  policy  concerns,  our  Govern­
ment  reached  the  conclusion  that  widespread  adoption  of 
the  international-exhaustion  framework  would  be  incon­
sistent  with  the  long-term  economic  interests  of  the  United
States.    See  Brief  for  United  States  as  Amicus  Curiae  in 
Quality King, O. T. 1997, No. 96–1470, pp. 22–26 (herein­