Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/12pdf/11-697_d1o2.pdf
Page Number: 65

24 

KIRTSAENG v. JOHN WILEY & SONS, INC. 

GINSBURG, J., dissenting 

B 
The  Court  sees  many  “horribles”  following  from  a  hold­
ing  that  the  §109(a)  phrase  “lawfully  made  under  this 
title” does not encompass foreign-made copies.  Ante, at 22 
(internal  quotation  marks  omitted).    If  §109(a)  excluded 
foreign-made copies, the Court fears, then copyright own­
ers  could  exercise  perpetual  control  over  the  downstream
distribution  or  public  display  of  such  copies.    A  ruling  in
Wiley’s  favor,  the  Court  asserts,  would  shutter  libraries, 
put  used-book  dealers  out  of  business,  cripple  art  muse­
ums,  and  prevent  the  resale  of  a  wide  range  of  consumer 
goods,  from  cars  to  calculators.  Ante,  at  19–22.  See  also 
ante,  at  2–3  (KAGAN,  J.,  concurring)  (expressing  concern 
about  “imposing  downstream  liability  on  those  who  pur­
chase  and  resell  in  the  United  States  copies  that  happen
to  have  been  manufactured  abroad”).    Copyright  law  and 
precedent,  however,  erect  barriers  to  the  anticipated 
horribles.18 

1 
Recognizing  that  foreign-made  copies  fall  outside  the
ambit  of  §109(a)  would  not  mean  they  are  forever  free  of
the first sale doctrine.  As earlier observed, see supra, at 2, 
the Court stated that  doctrine initially in its 1908  Bobbs-

—————— 

on  the  distribution  of  its  own  textbooks.    See  Hovenkamp,  Post-Sale 
Restraints and Competitive Harm: The First Sale Doctrine in Perspec­
tive,  66  N. Y. U.  Ann.  Survey  Am.  L.  487,  488  (2011)  (“vertical  re­
straints”  include  “limits  [on]  the  way  a  seller’s  own  product  can  be 
distributed”). 

18 As the Court observes, ante, at 32–33, the United States stated  at 
oral  argument  that  the  types  of  “horribles”  predicted  in  the  Court’s 
opinion  would,  if  they  came  to  pass,  be  “worse  than  the  frustration  of 
market  segmentation”  that  will  result  from  the  Court’s  interpretation
of §109(a).  Tr. of Oral Arg. 51.  The United States, however, recognized 
that  this  purported  dilemma  is  a  false  one.    As  the  United  States 
explained, the Court’s horribles can be avoided while still giving mean­
ingful effect to §602(a)(1)’s ban on unauthorized importation.  Ibid.