Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/12pdf/11-697_d1o2.pdf
Page Number: 18

14 

KIRTSAENG v. JOHN WILEY & SONS, INC. 

Opinion of the Court 

right  to  lend,  rent,  sell,  or  otherwise  dispose  of  the  print
without first obtaining the copyright owner’s permission”). 
See  also  Platt  &  Munk  Co.  v.  Republic  Graphics,  Inc., 
315 F. 2d 847, 851 (CA2 1963) (Friendly, J.) (pointing out 
predecessor statute’s leasing problem)).

This  objective  perfectly  well  explains  the  new  language
of  the  present  version,  including  the  five  words  here  at 
issue.  Section  109(a)  now  makes  clear  that  a  lessee  of 
a  copy  will  not  receive  “first  sale”  protection  but  one  who 
owns a copy will receive “first sale” protection, provided, of 
course,  that  the  copy  was  “lawfully  made”  and  not  pi-
rated.    The  new  language  also  takes  into  account  that  a
copy may be “lawfully made under this title” when the copy, 
say  of  a  phonorecord,  comes  into  its  owner’s  possession 
through  use  of  a  compulsory  license,  which  “this  title”
provides for elsewhere, namely, in §115.  Again, for those
who find legislative history useful, the relevant legislative
report  makes  this  clear.    H. R.  Rep.  No.  94–1476,  p.  79
(1976)  (“For  example,  any  resale  of  an  illegally  ‘pirated’ 
phonorecord would be an infringement, but the disposition
of  a  phonorecord  legally  made  under  the  compulsory  li­
censing provisions of section 115 would not”). 

Other  provisions  of  the  present  statute  also  support 

a nongeographical interpretation.  For one thing, the stat­
ute  phases  out  the  “manufacturing  clause,”  a  clause  that 
appeared  in  earlier  statutes  and  had  limited  importation 
of  many  copies  (of  copyrighted  works)  printed  outside  the 
United States.  §601, 90 Stat. 2588 (“Prior to July 1, 1982
. . .  the  importation  into  or  public  distribution  in  the 
United States of copies of a work consisting preponderantly 
of  nondramatic  literary  material  . . .  is  prohibited  unless
the portions consisting of such material have been manufac- 
tured in the United States or Canada”).  The phasing out 
of this clause sought to equalize treatment of copies manu­
factured in America and copies manufactured abroad.  See 
H. R. Rep. No. 94–1476, at 165–166.