Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/12pdf/11-697_d1o2.pdf
Page Number: 56.0

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

15 

GINSBURG, J., dissenting 

the British and the American publisher.”  Ibid.  In such a 
case,  “no  possibility  of  any  contract  remedy”  would  exist. 
Ibid.  The facts of Kirtsaeng’s case fit Diamond’s example,
save  that  the  copies  at  issue  here  were  printed  and  ini- 
tially sold in Asia rather than Great Britain.

After  considering  comments  on  its  1961  report,  the
Copyright  Office  “prepared  a  preliminary  draft  of  provi­
sions  for  a  new  copyright  statute.”    Copyright  Law  Revi­
sion Part 3: Preliminary Draft for Revised U. S. Copyright
Law  and  Discussions  and  Comments  on  the  Draft,  88th 
Cong.,  2d  Sess.,  V  (H. R.  Judiciary  Comm.  Print  1964).
Section  44  of  the  draft  statute  addressed  the  concerns 
raised by publishing-industry representatives.  In particu­
lar, §44(a) provided: 

“Importation  into  the  United  States  of  copies  or  rec­
ords  of  a  work  for  the  purpose  of  distribution  to  the 
public shall, if such articles are imported without the 
authority  of  the  owner  of  the  exclusive  right  to  dis­
tribute copies or records under this title, constitute an
infringement of copyright actionable under section 35 
[i.e., the section providing for a private cause of action
for copyright infringement].”  Id., at 32–33. 

In  a  1964  panel  discussion  regarding  the  draft  statute,
Abe Goldman, the Copyright Office’s General Counsel, left 
no doubt about the meaning of §44(a).  It represented, he 
explained,  a  “shif[t]”  from  the  Copyright  Office’s  1961
report,  which  had  recommended  against  using  copyright 
law  to  facilitate  publishers’  efforts  to  segment  interna­
tional  markets.  Copyright  Law  Revision  Part  4:  Further
Discussions  and  Comments  on  Preliminary  Draft  for 
Revised  U. S.  Copyright  Law,  88th  Cong.,  2d  Sess.,  203
(H. R.  Judiciary  Comm.  Print  1964).    Section  44(a),  Gold­
man  stated,  would  allow  copyright  owners  to  bring  in­
fringement  actions  against  importers  of  “foreign  copies
that  were  made  under  proper  authority.”    Ibid.   See  also