Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/12pdf/11-697_d1o2.pdf
Page Number: 73

32 

KIRTSAENG v. JOHN WILEY & SONS, INC. 

GINSBURG, J., dissenting 

ing  Congress’  intent,  expressed  in  §602(a)(1),  to  grant 
copyright  owners  the  authority  to  bar  the  importation  of
foreign-made  copies  of  their  works.    Cf.  Hartford  Under-
writers Ins. Co. v. Union Planters Bank, N. A., 530 U. S. 1, 
6 (2000) (“[W]hen the statute’s language is plain, the sole 
function  of  the  courts—at  least  where  the  disposition
required by the text is not absurd—is to enforce it accord­
ing to its terms.” (internal quotation marks omitted)). 

VI 
To recapitulate, the objective of statutory interpretation
is  “to  give  effect  to  the  intent  of  Congress.”    American 
Trucking  Assns.,  310  U. S.,  at  542.    Here,  two  congres- 
sional aims are evident.  First, in enacting §602(a)(1), Con-
gress  intended  to  grant  copyright  owners  permission  to
segment international markets by barring the importation 
of foreign-made copies into the United States.  Second, as 
codification of the first sale doctrine underscores, Congress 
did  not  want  the  exclusive  distribution  right  conferred  in
§106(3)  to  be  boundless.    Instead  of  harmonizing  these 
objectives, the Court subordinates the first entirely to the 
second.  It  is  unsurprising  that  none  of  the  three  major 
treatises  on  U. S.  copyright  law  embrace  the  Court’s  con­
struction  of  §109(a).    See  2  Nimmer  §8.12[B][6][c],  at 

—————— 

make available for sale in this country.  To protect their profit margins 
in  the  U. S.  market,  copyright  owners  may  raise  prices  in  less  devel­
oped  countries  or  may  withdraw  from  such  markets  altogether.    See 
Brief  for  United  States  as  Amicus  Curiae  26;  Brief  for  Text  and  Aca­
demic Authors Association as Amicus Curiae 12; Brief for Association of 
American  Publishers  as  Amicus  Curiae  37.  See  also  Chiappetta  357–
358 (a rule of national exhaustion “encourages entry and participation
in  developing  markets  at  lower,  locally  more  affordable  prices  by
eliminating them as risky sources of cheaper parallel imports back into 
premium markets”).  Such an outcome would disserve consumers—and 
especially  students—in  developing  nations  and  would  hardly  advance 
the  “American  foreign  policy  goals”  of  supporting  education  and  eco­
nomic development in such countries.  Quality King Brief 25–26.