Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/12pdf/11-697_d1o2.pdf
Page Number: 33

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

29 

Opinion of the Court 

thorized imports.  It said: 

“Importation  into  the  United  States  of  copies  or  rec­
ords  of  a  work  for  the  purpose  of  distribution  to  the 
public shall, if such articles are imported without the 
authority of the owner of the exclusive right to distrib- 
ute  copies  or  records  under  this  title,  constitute  an 
infringement of copyright actionable under section 35 
[17 U. S. C. §501].”  Id., Preliminary Draft for Revised 
U. S. Copyright Law and Discussions and Comments, 
88th  Cong.,  2d  Sess.,  pt.  3,  pp.  32–33  (Comm.  Print 
1964). 

In discussing the draft, some of those present expressed 
concern  about  its  effect  on  the  “first  sale”  doctrine.  For 
example,  Irwin  Karp,  representing  the  Authors  League 
of  America  asked,  “If  a  German  jobber  lawfully  buys  cop- 
ies from a German publisher, are we not running into the
problem of restricting his transfer of his lawfully obtained
copies?”  Id.,  pt.  4,  at  211.  The  Copyright  Office  repre­
sentative  replied,  “This  could  vary  from  one  situation  to
I  should  guess,  for  example,  that  if 
another,  I  guess. 
a book publisher transports [i.e., does not sell] copies to a 
wholesaler  [i.e.,  a  nonowner],  this  is  not  yet  the  kind  of 
transaction that exhausts the right to control disposition.” 
Ibid. (emphasis added). 

The  Office  later  withdrew  the  draft,  replacing  it  with  a 
draft, which, by explicitly referring to §106, was similar to
the provision that became law, now §602(a)(1).  The Office 
noted in a report that, under the new draft, importation of 
a  copy  (without  permission)  “would  violate  the  exclusive
rights of the U. S. copyright owner . . . where the copyright
owner  had  authorized  the  making  of  copies  in  a  foreign 
country for distribution only in that country.”  Id., pt. 6, at
150. 

Still, that part of the report says nothing about the “first
sale”  doctrine,  about  §109(a),  or  about  the  five  words,