Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/12pdf/11-697_d1o2.pdf
Page Number: 16

12 

KIRTSAENG v. JOHN WILEY & SONS, INC. 

Opinion of the Court 

domestic  sale  of  the  copy.  A  publisher  such  as  Wiley 
would  be  free  to  print  its  books  abroad,  allow  their  im- 
portation  and  sale  within  the  United  States,  but  prohibit 
students  from  later  selling  their  used  texts  at  a  campus 
bookstore.  We see no way, however, to reconcile this half­
geographical/half-nongeographical  interpretation  with  the 
language  of  the  phrase,  “lawfully  made  under  this  title.”
As  a  matter  of  English,  it  would  seem  that  those  five
words either do cover copies lawfully made abroad or they 
do not. 

In  sum,  we  believe  that  geographical  interpretations
create  more  linguistic  problems  than  they  resolve.    And 
considerations  of  simplicity  and  coherence  tip  the  purely
linguistic balance in Kirtsaeng’s, nongeographical, favor. 

B 
Both  historical  and  contemporary  statutory  context  in­
dicate that Congress, when writing the present version of 
§109(a),  did  not  have  geography  in  mind.  In  respect  to
history,  we  compare  §109(a)’s  present  language  with  the
language  of  its  immediate  predecessor.    That  predecessor 
said: 

“[N]othing  in  this  Act  shall  be  deemed  to  forbid,  pre­
vent,  or  restrict  the  transfer  of  any  copy  of  a  copy­
righted work the possession of which has been lawfully 
obtained.”  Copyright  Act  of  1909,  §41,  35  Stat.  1084 
(emphasis added). 

See  also  Copyright  Act  of  1947,  §27,  61  Stat.  660.    The 
predecessor says nothing about geography (and Wiley does
not  argue  that  it  does).    So  we  ask  whether  Congress,  in
changing  its  language  implicitly  introduced  a  geograph-
ical limitation that previously was lacking.  See also Part 
II–C,  infra  (discussing  1909  codification  of  common-law 
principle).

A comparison of language indicates that it did not.  The