Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/12pdf/11-697_d1o2.pdf
Page Number: 35

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

31 

Opinion of the Court 

Accord, S. Rep. No. 94–473, pp. 71–72 (1975). 

This history reiterates the importance of the “first sale” 
doctrine.  See, e.g., Copyright Law Revision, 1964 Revision
Bill  with  Discussions  and  Comments,  89th  Cong.,  1st
Sess., pt. 5, p. 66 (Comm. Print 1965) (“[F]ull ownership of 
a  lawfully-made  copy  authorizes  its  owner  to  dispose  of 
it freely”).  It explains, as we have explained, the nongeo­
graphical purposes of the words “lawfully made under this
title.”  Part II–B, supra.  And it says nothing about geog­
raphy.    Nor,  importantly,  did  §109(a)’s  predecessor  provi­
sion.  See  supra,  at  12.  This  means  that,  contrary  to  the
dissent’s  suggestion,  any  lack  of  legislative  history  per­
taining  to  the  “first  sale”  doctrine  only  tends  to  bolster 
our position that Congress’ 1976 revision did not intend to
create a drastic geographical change in its revision to that
provision.  See post, at 18, n. 13.  We consequently believe
that the legislative history, on balance, supports the non- 
geographical interpretation. 

Third, Wiley and the dissent claim that a nongeograph­
ical  interpretation  will  make  it  difficult,  perhaps  impos­
sible, for publishers (and other copyright holders) to divide
foreign  and  domestic  markets.  We  concede  that  is  so.    A 
publisher  may  find  it  more  difficult  to  charge  different 
prices  for  the  same  book  in  different  geographic  markets. 
But  we  do  not  see  how  these  facts  help  Wiley,  for  we  can 
find no basic principle of copyright law that suggests that
publishers are especially entitled to such rights. 

The  Constitution  describes  the  nature  of  American 
copyright  law  by  providing  Congress  with  the  power  to
“secur[e]” to “[a]uthors” “for limited [t]imes” the “exclusive 
[r]ight to their . . . [w]ritings.”  Art. I, §8, cl. 8.  The Found­
ers,  too,  discussed  the  need  to  grant  an  author  a  limited
right to exclude competition.  Compare Letter from Thomas 
Jefferson  to  James  Madison  (July  31,  1788),  in  13
Papers of Thomas Jefferson 440, 442–443 (J. Boyd ed. 1956)
(arguing  against  any  monopoly)  with  Letter  from  James