Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/12pdf/11-697_d1o2.pdf
Page Number: 50.0

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

9 

GINSBURG, J., dissenting 

of  the  copies  or  phonorecords  would  have  constituted  an 
infringement  of  copyright  if  this  title  had  been  applicable, 
their  importation  is  prohibited.”  (emphasis  added)).    Had 
Congress  intended  courts  to  engage  in  a  similarly  hypo­
thetical  inquiry  under  §109(a),  Congress  would  pre-
sumably  have  included  similar  language  in  that  section. 
See  Russello  v.  United  States,  464  U. S.  16,  23  (1983) 
(“ ‘[W]here  Congress  includes  particular  language  in  one 
section  of  a  statute  but  omits  it  in  another  section  of  the 
same  Act,  it  is  generally  presumed  that  Congress  acts
intentionally  and  purposely  in  the  disparate  inclusion
or  exclusion.’ ”  (quoting  United  States  v.  Wong  Kim  Bo, 
472  F. 2d  720,  722  (CA5  1972)  (per  curiam);  brackets  in 
original)).5 

—————— 

5 Attempting to show that my reading of §109(a) is susceptible to the
same  criticism,  the  Court  points  to  the  now-repealed  “manufacturing
clause,”  which  required  “copies  of  a  work  consisting  preponderantly  of
nondramatic  literary  material  . . .  in  the  English  language”  to  be
“manufactured in the United States or Canada.”  Copyright Act of 1976, 
§601(a), 90 Stat. 2588.   Because Congress expressly referred to manu­
facturing  in  this  provision,  the  Court  contends,  the  phrase  “lawfully
made  under  this  title”  in  §109(a)  cannot  mean  “manufactured  in  the 
United States.”  Ante, at 19.  This argument is a non sequitur.  I do not 
contend  that  the  phrases  “lawfully  made  under  this  title”  and  “manu­
factured  in  the  United  States”  are  interchangeable.    To  repeat,  I  read 
the phrase “lawfully made under this title” as referring to instances in 
which  a  copy’s  creation  is  governed  by,  and  conducted  in  compliance 
with, Title 17 of the U. S. Code.  See supra, at 6.  Not all copies “manu­
factured in the United States” will satisfy this standard.  For example,
piratical  copies  manufactured  in  the  United  States  without  the  copy­
right  owner’s  authorization  are  not  “lawfully  made  under  [Title  17].”
Nor would the phrase “lawfully manufactured in the United States” be
an exact substitute for “lawfully made under this title.”  The making of
a copy may be lawful under Title 17 yet still violate  some other provi­
sion  of  law.  Consider,  for  example,  a  copy  made  with  the  copyright 
owner’s  authorization  by  workers  who  are  paid  less  than  minimum 
wage.  The copy would be “lawfully made under [Title 17]” in the sense
that  its  creation  would  not  violate  any  provision  of  that  title,  but  the
copy’s  manufacturing  would  nonetheless  be  unlawful  due  to  the  viola­