Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/12pdf/11-697_d1o2.pdf
Page Number: 67

26 

KIRTSAENG v. JOHN WILEY & SONS, INC. 

GINSBURG, J., dissenting 

Thus,  in  accord  with  Bobbs-Merrill,  the  first  authorized 
distribution  of  a  foreign-made  copy  in  the  United  States 
exhausts  the  copyright  owner’s  distribution  right  under
§106(3).  After  such  an  authorized  distribution,  a  library
may  lend,  or  a  used-book  dealer  may  resell,  the  foreign­
made  copy  without  seeking  the  copyright  owner’s  permis­
sion.  Cf. ante, at 19–21. 

For  example,  if  Wiley,  rather  than  Kirtsaeng,  had 

imported into the United States and then sold the foreign­
made  textbooks  at  issue  in  this  case,  Wiley’s  §106(3)  dis­
tribution  right  would  have  been  exhausted  under  the 
rationale  of  Bobbs-Merrill.  Purchasers  of  the  textbooks 
would thus be free to dispose of the books as they wished
without first gaining a license from Wiley.

This line of reasoning, it must be acknowledged, signifi­
cantly  curtails  the  independent  effect  of  §109(a).    If,  as  I 
maintain, the term “distribute” in §106(3) incorporates the 
first  sale  doctrine  by  virtue  of  Bobbs-Merrill,  then 
§109(a)’s  codification  of  that  doctrine  adds  little  to  the 
regulatory  regime.20    Section  109(a),  however,  does  serve 

—————— 

that  the  exclusive  rights  to  “publish”  and  “vend”  works  under  the 
Copyright Act of 1947, §1(a), 61 Stat. 652–653, were “redundant”). 

20 My position that Bobbs-Merrill lives on as a limiting construction of 
the §106(3) distribution right does not leave §109(a) with no work to do. 
There can be little doubt that the books at issue in Bobbs-Merrill were 
published and first sold in the United States.  See Bobbs-Merrill Co. v. 
Straus, 139 F. 155, 157 (CC SDNY 1905) (the publisher claiming copy- 
right  infringement  in  Bobbs-Merrill  was  incorporated  and  had  its 
principal office in Indiana).  See also Copyright Act of 1891, §3, 26 Stat.
1107–1108  (generally  prohibiting  importation,  even  by  the  copyright
owner,  of  foreign-manufactured  copies  of  copyrighted  books);  4  Patry 
§13:40, at 13–111 (under the Copyright Act of 1891, “copies of books by
both foreign and U. S. authors had to be printed in the United States”). 
But  cf.  ante,  at  18  (asserting,  without  acknowledging  the  1891  Copy­
right Act’s general prohibition against the importation of foreign-made 
copies  of  copyrighted  books,  that  the  Court  is  unable  to  find  any  “geo­
graphical  distinctions  . . .  in Bobbs-Merrill ”).  Thus,  exhaustion  occurs 
under Bobbs-Merrill only when a copy is distributed within the United