Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/12pdf/11-697_d1o2.pdf
Page Number: 31.0

Cite as:  568 U. S. ____ (2013) 

27 

Opinion of the Court 

dissent also adopts a construction of §106(3) that “signifi­
cantly  curtails”  §109(a)’s  effect,  post,  at  26,  and  so  limits 
the  scope  of  that  provision  to  a  similar,  or  even  greater,
degree.

In Quality King we rejected the “superfluous” argument
for  similar  reasons.    But,  when  rejecting  it,  we  said  that,
where  an  author  gives  exclusive  American  distribution
rights  to  an  American  publisher  and  exclusive  British 
distribution  rights  to  a  British  publisher,  “presumably 
only  those  [copies]  made  by  the  publisher  of  the  United 
States  edition  would  be  ‘lawfully  made  under  this  title’ 
within the meaning of §109(a).”  523 U. S., at 148 (empha­
sis  added).    Wiley  now  argues  that  this  phrase  in  the 
Quality  King  opinion  means  that  books  published  abroad 
(under license) must fall outside the words “lawfully made 
under  this  title”  and  that  we  have  consequently  already 
given  those  words  the  geographical  interpretation  that  it 
favors. 

We  cannot,  however,  give  the  Quality  King  statement 
the  legal  weight  for  which  Wiley  argues.    The  language
“lawfully made under this title” was not at issue in Qual­
ity King; the point before us now was not then fully argued; 
we  did  not  canvas  the  considerations  we  have  here  set 
forth;  we  there  said  nothing  to  suggest  that  the  example 
assumes  a  “first  sale”;  and  we  there  hedged  our  state- 
ment with the word “presumably.”  Most importantly, the 
statement  is  pure  dictum.  It  is  dictum  contained  in  a 
rebuttal  to  a  counterargument.  And  it  is  unnecessary 
dictum  even  in  that  respect.    Is  the  Court  having  once
written  dicta  calling  a  tomato  a  vegetable  bound  to  deny 
that it is a fruit forever after? 

To the contrary, we have written that we are not neces­
sarily  bound  by  dicta  should  more  complete  argument
demonstrate  that  the  dicta  is  not  correct.  Central  Va. 
Community  College  v.  Katz,  546  U. S.  356,  363  (2006) 
(“[W]e are not bound to follow our dicta in a prior case in