Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/12pdf/11-697_d1o2.pdf
Page Number: 51

10 

KIRTSAENG v. JOHN WILEY & SONS, INC. 

GINSBURG, J., dissenting 

Not  only  does  the  Court  adopt  an  unnatural  construc­
tion of the §109(a) phrase “lawfully made under this title.”
Concomitantly,  the  Court  reduces  §602(a)(1)  to  insignifi­
cance.  As the Court appears to acknowledge, see ante, at 
26,  the  only  independent  effect  §602(a)(1)  has  under  to­
day’s  decision  is  to  prohibit  unauthorized  importations
carried out by persons who merely have possession of, but 
do  not  own,  the  imported  copies.  See  17  U. S. C.  §109(a) 
(§109(a)  applies  to  any  “owner  of  a  particular  copy  or
phonorecord  lawfully  made  under  this  title”  (emphasis
added)).6    If  this  is  enough  to  avoid  rendering  §602(a)(1)
entirely “superfluous,” ante, at 26, it hardly suffices to give 
the owner’s importation right the scope Congress intended 
it to have.  Congress used broad language in §602(a)(1); it
did so to achieve a broad objective.  Had Congress intended
simply  to  provide  a  copyright  remedy  against  larcenous 
lessees,  licensees,  consignees,  and  bailees  of  films  and 
other  copyright-protected  goods,  see  ante,  at  13–14,  26,  it 
likely  would  have  used  language  tailored  to  that  narrow 
purpose.  See 2 Nimmer §8.12[B][6][c], at 8–184.31, n. 432
(“It  may  be  wondered  whether  .  .  .  potential  causes  of 
action [against licensees and the like] are more than theo­
retical.”).  See also ante, at 2 (KAGAN, J., concurring) (the
Court’s decision limits §602(a)(1) “to a fairly esoteric set of 

—————— 

tion of the minimum-wage laws. 

6 When  §602(a)(1)  was  originally  enacted  in  1976,  it  played  an  addi­
tional  role—providing  a  private  cause  of  action  against  importers  of
piratical goods.  See Quality King, 523 U. S., at 146.  In 2008, however, 
Congress  amended  §602  to  provide  for  such  a  cause  of  action  in
§602(a)(2),  which  prohibits  the  unauthorized  “[i]mportation  into  the 
United States . . . of copies or phonorecords, the making of which either
constituted  an  infringement  of  copyright,  or  which  would  have  consti­
tuted  an  infringement  of  copyright  if  [Title  17]  had  been  applicable.” 
See PROIPA, §105(b)(3), 122 Stat. 4259–4260.  Thus, under the Court’s 
interpretation,  the  only  conduct  reached  by  §602(a)(1)  but  not 
§602(a)(2)  is  a  nonowner’s  unauthorized  importation  of  a  nonpiratical 
copy.