Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/12pdf/11-697_d1o2.pdf
Page Number: 44

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

3 

GINSBURG, J., dissenting 

the  copyright  owner’s  exclusive  right  under  §106(3)  to 
control  the  distribution  of  a  particular  copy  is  exhausted, 
and  from  that  point  forward,  the  copy  can  be  resold  or 
otherwise  redistributed  without  the  copyright  owner’s 
authorization. 

Section  602(a)(1)  (2006  ed.,  Supp.  V)1—last,  but  most 
critical,  of  the  three  copyright  provisions  bearing  on  this
case—is an importation ban.  It reads: 

“Importation  into  the  United  States,  without  the
authority of the owner of copyright under this title, of 
copies  or  phonorecords  of  a  work  that  have  been
acquired  outside  the  United  States  is  an  infringe- 
ment  of  the  exclusive  right  to  distribute  copies  or
phonorecords under section 106, actionable under sec­
tion 501.” 

In  Quality  King  Distributors,  Inc.  v.  L’anza  Research 
Int’l,  Inc.,  523  U. S.  135,  143–154  (1998),  the  Court  held 
that a copyright owner’s right to control importation under 
§602(a)(1) is a component of the distribution right set forth
in §106(3) and is therefore subject to §109(a)’s codification
of  the  first  sale  doctrine.  Quality  King  thus  held  that 
the  importation  of  copies  made  in  the  United  States  but 
sold  abroad  did  not  rank  as  copyright  infringement 
under  §602(a)(1).  Id.,  at  143–154.    See  also  id.,  at  154 
(GINSBURG,  J.,  concurring)  (Quality  King  “involve[d]  a
‘round  trip’  journey,  travel  of  the  copies  in  question  from
the  United  States  to  places  abroad,  then  back  again”).2 
—————— 

1 In  2008,  Congress  renumbered  what  was  previously  §602(a)  as 
§602(a)(1).  See Prioritizing Resources and Organization for Intellectual 
Property  Act  of  2008  (PROIPA),  §105(b)(2),  122  Stat.  4259.    Like  the 
Court, I refer to the provision by its current numbering. 

2 Although  JUSTICE  KAGAN’s  concurrence  suggests  that  Quality  King
erred in “holding that §109(a) limits §602(a)(1),” ante, at 2, that recent, 
unanimous  holding  must  be  taken  as  a  given.    See  John  R.  Sand  & 
Gravel  Co.  v.  United  States,  552  U. S.  130,  139  (2008)  (“[S]tare  decisis
in  respect  to  statutory  interpretation  has  ‘special  force,’  for  ‘Congress