Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/12pdf/11-697_d1o2.pdf
Page Number: 57.0

16 

KIRTSAENG v. JOHN WILEY & SONS, INC. 

GINSBURG, J., dissenting 

id.,  at  205–206  (Goldman  agreed  with  a  speaker’s  com­
ment  that  §44(a)  “enlarge[d]”  U. S.  copyright  law  by  ex­
tending  import  prohibitions  “to  works  legally  produced  in 
Europe” and other foreign countries).11 

The next step in the copyright revision process was the
introduction  in  Congress  of  a  draft  bill  on  July  20,  1964. 
See  Copyright  Law  Revision  Part  5:  1964  Revision  Bill
with Discussions and Comments, 89th Cong., 1st Sess., III 
(H. R. Judiciary Comm. Print 1965).  After another round 
of public comments, a revised bill was introduced on Feb­
ruary  4,  1965.    See  Copyright  Law  Revision  Part  6:  Sup­
plementary  Report  of  the  Register  of  Copyrights  on  the
General  Revision  of  the  U. S.  Copyright  Law:  1965  Revi­
sion Bill, 89th Cong.,  1st Sess.,  V (H. R. Judiciary Comm.
Print  1965)  (hereinafter  Copyright  Law  Revision  Part  6).
In  language  closely  resembling  the  statutory  text  later 
enacted by Congress, §602(a) of the 1965 bill provided: 

“Importation  into  the  United  States,  without  the  au­
thority  of  the  owner  of  copyright  under  this  title,  of 
copies  or  phonorecords  of  a  work  for  the  purpose  of 
distribution to the public is an infringement of the ex­
clusive  right  to  distribute  copies  or  phonorecords  un­
der section 106, actionable under section 501.”  Id., at 
292.12 

—————— 

11 As  the  Court  observes,  ante,  at  29,  Irwin  Karp  of  the  Authors
League of America stated at the 1964 panel discussion that §44(a) ran
counter to “the very basic concept of copyright law that, once you’ve sold
a  copy  legally,  you  can’t  restrict  its  resale.”    Copyright  Law  Revision 
Part  4,  at  212.    When  asked  if  he  was  “presenting  . . .  an  argument
against” §44(a), however, Karp responded that he was “neutral on th[e]
provision.”  Id., at 211.  There is thus little reason to  believe that  any
changes to the wording of §44(a) before its codification in §602(a) were
made  in  response  to  Karp’s  discussion  of  “the  problem  of  restricting
[the] transfer of . . . lawfully obtained [foreign] copies.”  Ibid. 

12 There  is  but  one  difference  between  this  language  from  the  1965 
bill and the corresponding language in the current version of §602(a)(1):