Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/12pdf/11-697_d1o2.pdf
Page Number: 28.0

24 

KIRTSAENG v. JOHN WILEY & SONS, INC. 

Opinion of the Court 

adopt  textual  readings  of  the  statute  that  attempt  to
  Brief  for  United  States  27–28; 
mitigate  these  harms.
post, at 24–28.  But those readings are not defensible, for 
they  require  too  many  unprecedented  jumps  over  linguis­
tic and other hurdles that in our view are insurmountable. 
See,  e.g.,  post,  at  26  (acknowledging  that  its  reading  of 
§106(3)  “significantly  curtails  the  independent  effect  of 
§109(a)”).

Finally,  the  fact  that  harm  has  proved  limited  so  far
may  simply  reflect  the  reluctance  of  copyright  holders  so
far to assert geographically based resale rights.  They may
decide  differently  if  the  law  is  clarified  in  their  favor. 
Regardless, a copyright law that can work in practice only
if unenforced is not a sound copyright law.  It is a law that 
would  create  uncertainty,  would  bring  about  selective
enforcement, and, if widely unenforced, would breed disre­
spect for copyright law itself. 

Thus,  we  believe  that  the  practical  problems  that  peti­
tioner  and  his  amici  have  described  are  too  serious,  too 
extensive,  and  too  likely  to  come  about  for  us  to  dismiss
them  as  insignificant—particularly  in  light  of  the  ever­
growing  importance  of  foreign  trade  to  America.    See 
The  World  Bank,  Imports  of  goods  and  services  (%  of 
GDP)  (imports  in  2011  18%  of  U. S.  gross  domestic 
product  compared  to  11%  in  1980),  online  at  http://
data.worldbank.org/indicator/NE.IMP.GNFS.ZS? (as visited 
Mar.  15,  2013,  and  available  in  Clerk  of  Court’s  case  file).
The  upshot  is  that  copyright-related  consequences  along 
with  language,  context,  and  interpretive  canons  argue
strongly against a geographical interpretation of §109(a). 

III 
Wiley  and  the  dissent  make  several  additional  impor­
tant arguments in favor of the geographical interpretation.  
First,  they  say  that  our  Quality  King  decision  strongly
In  that  case 
supports  its  geographical  interpretation.