Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/12pdf/11-697_d1o2.pdf
Page Number: 17.0

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

13 

Opinion of the Court 

predecessor says that the “first sale” doctrine protects “the
transfer  of  any  copy  the  possession  of  which  has  been 
lawfully  obtained.”  The  present  version  says  that  “the 
owner  of  a  particular  copy  or  phonorecord  lawfully  made
under  this  title  is  entitled  to  sell  or  otherwise  dispose  of
the  possession  of  that  copy  or  phonorecord.”    What  does 
this change in language accomplish?

The  language  of  the  former  version  referred  to  those 
who  are  not  owners  of  a  copy,  but  mere  possessors  who 
“lawfully  obtained”  a  copy.  The  present  version  covers 
only  those  who  are  owners  of  a  “lawfully  made”  copy. 
Whom  does  the  change  leave  out?    Who  might  have  law- 
fully obtained a copy of a copyrighted work but not owned 
that  copy?  One  answer  is  owners  of  movie  theaters,  who 
during  the  1970’s  (and  before)  often  leased  films  from 
movie  distributors  or  filmmakers.    See  S.  Donahue, 
American  Film  Distribution  134,  177  (1987)  (describing 
producer-distributer and distributer-exhibitor agreements);
Note, The Relationship Between  Motion Picture Distribu­
tion  and  Exhibition:  An  Analysis  of  the  Effects  of  Anti-
Blind  Bidding  Legislation,  9  Comm/Ent.  L. J.  131,  135 
(1986).  Because  the  theater  owners  had  “lawfully  ob­
tained”  their  copies,  the  earlier  version  could  be  read  as 
allowing  them  to  sell  that  copy,  i.e.,  it  might  have  given
them  “first  sale”  protection.    Because  the  theater  owners 
were  lessees,  not  owners,  of  their  copies,  the  change  in
language  makes  clear  that  they  (like  bailees  and  other 
lessees) cannot take advantage of the “first sale” doctrine.
(Those  who  find  legislative  history  useful  will  find  confir­
mation  in, e.g.,  House  Committee  on  the  Judiciary,  Copy­
right Law Revision, Supplementary Report of the Register
of  Copyrights  on  the  General  Revision  of  the  U. S.  Copy­
right  Law:  1965  Revision  Bill,  89th  Cong.,  1st  Sess.,  pt. 
6,  p.  30  (Comm.  Print  1965)  (hereinafter  Copyright  Law 
Revision)  (“[W]here  a  person  has  rented  a  print  of  a  mo­
tion  picture  from  the  copyright  owner,  he  would  have  no