Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/12pdf/11-697_d1o2.pdf
Page Number: 45.0

4 

KIRTSAENG v. JOHN WILEY & SONS, INC. 

GINSBURG, J., dissenting 

Important  to  the  Court’s  holding,  the  copies  at  issue  in 
Quality  King  had  been  “ ‘lawfully  made  under  [Title 
17]’ ”—a prerequisite for application of §109(a).  Id., at 143, 
n. 9 (quoting §109(a)).  Section 602(a)(1), the Court noted, 
would apply to “copies that were ‘lawfully made’ not under 
the  United  States  Copyright  Act,  but  instead,  under  the
law  of  some  other  country.”  Id.,  at  147.  Drawing  on  an
example  discussed  during  a  1964  public  meeting  on  pro­
posed  revisions  to  the  U. S.  copyright  laws,3  the  Court 
stated: 

“If  the  author  of  [a]  work  gave  the  exclusive  United 
States  distribution  rights—enforceable  under  the 
Act—to the publisher of the United States edition and 
the  exclusive  British  distribution  rights  to  the  pub­
lisher of the British edition, . . . presumably only those 
[copies]  made  by  the  publisher  of  the  United  States 
edition  would  be  ‘lawfully  made  under  this  title’
within the meaning of §109(a).  The first sale doctrine 
would not provide the publisher of the British edition
who decided to sell in the American market with a de­
fense  to  an  action  under  §602(a)  (or,  for  that  matter, 

—————— 

remains  free  to  alter  what  we  have  done.’ ”  (quoting  Patterson  v. 
McLean  Credit  Union,  491  U. S.  164,  172–173  (1989))).    The  Court’s 
objective in this case should be to avoid unduly “constrict[ing] the scope 
of §602(a)(1)’s ban on unauthorized importation,” ante, at 1 (opinion of 
KAGAN, J.), while at the same time remaining faithful to Quality King’s 
holding  and  to  the  text  and  history  of  other  Copyright  Act  provisions. 
This  aim  is  not  difficult  to  achieve.    See  Parts  II–V,  infra.  JUSTICE 
KAGAN and I appear to agree to this extent: Congress meant the ban on 
unauthorized  importation  to  have  real  force.    See  ante,  at  3  (acknowl­
edging  that  “Wiley  may  have  a  point  about  what  §602(a)(1)  was  de­
signed to do”). 

3 See Quality King Distributors, Inc. v. L’anza Research Int’l, Inc., 523 
U. S.  135,  148,  n.  20  (1998)  (quoting  Copyright  Law  Revision  Part  4:
Further  Discussions  and  Comments  on  Preliminary  Draft  for  Revised 
U. S. Copyright Law, 88th Cong., 2d Sess., 119 (H. R. Judiciary Comm.
Print 1964) (hereinafter Copyright Law Revision Part 4)  (statement of
Harriet Pilpel)).