Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/12pdf/11-697_d1o2.pdf
Page Number: 72.0

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

31 

GINSBURG, J., dissenting 

practice.26  Manufacturers,  moreover,  may  be  hesitant  to 
do  business  with  software  programmers  taken  to  suing 
consumers.  Manufacturers  may  also  insist  that  soft-
ware  programmers  agree  to  contract  terms  barring  such
lawsuits. 

The  Court  provides  a  different  explanation  for  the
absence  of  the  untoward  consequences  predicted  in  its
opinion—namely, that lower court decisions regarding the
scope  of  §109(a)’s  first  sale  prescription  have  not  been
uniform.  Ante,  at  23.  Uncertainty  generated  by  these 
conflicting  decisions,  the  Court  notes,  may  have  deterred
some copyright owners from pressing infringement claims. 
Ante, at 23–24.  But if, as the Court suggests, there are a
multitude of copyright owners champing at the bit to bring
lawsuits against libraries, art museums, and consumers in 
an  effort  to  exercise  perpetual  control  over  the  down­
stream  distribution  and  public  display  of  foreign-made 
copies, might one not expect that at least a handful of such
lawsuits  would  have  been  filed  over  the  past  30  years? 
The  absence  of  such  suits  indicates  that  the  “practical 
problems” hypothesized by the Court are greatly exagger­
ated.  Ante, at 24.27  They surely do not warrant disregard­
—————— 

26 Exerting extensive control over secondary markets may not always
be  in  a  manufacturer’s  best  interest.    Carmakers,  for  example,  often 
trumpet  the  resale  value  of  their  vehicles.    See,  e.g.,  Nolan,  UD  grad
leads  Cadillac  marketing,  Dayton  Daily  News,  Apr.  2,  2009,  p.  A8
(“Cadillac  plays  up  its  warranty  coverage  and  reliable  resale  value  to 
prospective  customers.”).  If  the  transaction  costs  of  reselling  vehicles
were  to  rise,  consumers’  perception  of  a  new  car’s  value,  and  thus  the 
price  they  are  willing  to  pay  for  such  a  car,  might  fall—an  outcome
hardly favorable to automobile manufacturers. 

27 It should not be overlooked that the ability to prevent importation
of  foreign-made  copies  encourages  copyright  owners  such  as  Wiley  to
offer copies of their works at reduced prices to consumers in less devel­
oped  countries  who  might  otherwise  be  unable  to  afford  them.    The 
Court’s  holding,  however,  prevents  copyright  owners  from  barring  the 
importation  of  such  low-priced  copies  into  the  United  States,  where 
they  will  compete  with  the  higher  priced  editions  copyright  owners