throbber
No. 11-697
`================================================================
`
`In The
`Supreme Court of the United States
`---------------------------------  ---------------------------------
`
`SUPAP KIRTSAENG d/b/a BLUECHRISTINE99,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`JOHN WILEY & SONS, INC.,
`Respondent.
`
`---------------------------------  ---------------------------------
`
`On Writ Of Certiorari To The
`United States Court Of Appeals
`For The Second Circuit
`
`---------------------------------  ---------------------------------
`
`BRIEF OF AMICI CURIAE PUBLIC KNOWLEDGE,
`ELECTRONIC FRONTIER FOUNDATION,
`AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF LAW LIBRARIES,
`SPECIAL LIBRARIES ASSOCIATION, AND U.S.
`PUBLIC INTEREST RESEARCH GROUP
`IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONER
`
`---------------------------------  ---------------------------------
`
`HAROLD FELD
`Counsel of Record
`JODIE GRIFFIN
`SHERWIN SIY
`PUBLIC KNOWLEDGE
`1818 N Street, NW
`Suite 410
`Washington, DC 20036
`(202) 861-0020
`hfeld@publicknowledge.org
`CORYNNE MCSHERRY
`ELECTRONIC FRONTIER FOUNDATION
`454 Shotwell Street
`San Francisco, CA 94110
`(415) 436-9333 x 122
`
`================================================================
`COCKLE LAW BRIEF PRINTING CO. (800) 225-6964
`OR CALL COLLECT (402) 342-2831
`
`

`
`i
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES .................................
`iii
`INTEREST OF THE AMICI CURIAE .................
`1
`SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ..............................
`3
`ARGUMENT ........................................................
`4
`
`I. The Second Circuit’s erroneous interpre-
`tation of section 109(a) will impair trade,
`innovation, the public interest, and the
`free market
`for copies of copyright-
`protected goods ..........................................
`A. Sections 109 and 602 should be inter-
`preted to avoid manifestly absurd re-
`sults .....................................................
`B. The Second Circuit’s decision permits
`copyright owners to indefinitely con-
`trol the distribution of all foreign-
`manufactured copies ...........................
`1. New impediments to the resale of
`lawfully purchased goods harm
`U.S. consumers and businesses ......
`2. Copyright owners may attempt to
`seize indefinite control over distri-
`bution by moving their manufac-
`turing activities abroad .................. 13
`3. The lower court’s interpretation of
`“lawfully made under this title”
`could preclude consumers
`from
`displaying their lawfully acquired
`copies .............................................. 14
`
`8
`
`7
`
`4
`
`4
`
`

`
`ii
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS – Continued
`
`Page
`C. The decision below would authorize
`copyright owners to enjoin parallel
`imports, contrary to Congress’s intent
`and consumers’ interest ....................... 15
` II. The Ninth Circuit’s
`interpretation of
`section 109(a) does not mitigate the ill ef-
`fects of interpreting section 602 to trump
`section 109 ................................................. 19
`A. The Ninth Circuit’s “authorized sale”
`exception is not firmly rooted in the
`text or legislative history of the Copy-
`right Act ............................................... 19
`B. The Ninth Circuit recognized that its
`own reading of section 602 could pro-
`duce an “untenable” policy result ........ 22
` III. The Second Circuit’s untenable results
`and the Ninth Circuit’s need for a novel
`exception can both be avoided through
`proper interpretation of section 109 .......... 26
`A. Neither section 602 nor presumptions
`against extraterritoriality require “un-
`der this title” to be read as a geo-
`graphic restriction ............................... 27
`B. Non-geographic interpretations of “un-
`der this title” prevent absurd results,
`while still giving force to section 602 ..... 31
`CONCLUSION ..................................................... 35
`
`

`
`iii
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page
`
`CASES
`BMG Music v. Perez, 952 F.2d 318 (9th Cir.
`1991) ............................................................ 22, 23, 24
`Cariou v. Prince, 784 F. Supp. 2d 337 (S.D.N.Y.
`2011) ........................................................................ 14
`Church of the Holy Trinity v. United States, 143
`U.S. 457 (1892) .......................................................... 5
`Conn. Nat’l Bank v. Germain, 503 U.S. 249
`(1992) ....................................................................... 32
`Denbicare U.S.A. Inc. v. Toys “R” Us, Inc., 84
`F.3d 1143 (9th Cir. 1996) ............................. 10, 24, 25
`Fox Film Corp. v. Doyal, 286 U.S. 123 (1932) ........... 17
`Hasbro Bradley, Inc. v. Sparkle Toys, Inc., 780
`F.2d 189 (2d Cir. 1985) ............................................ 12
`Hoepker v. Kruger, 200 F. Supp. 2d 340
`(S.D.N.Y. 2002) ........................................................ 14
`John Wiley & Sons, Inc. v. Kirtsaeng, 654 F.3d
`210 (2d Cir. 2011) ........................................ 30, 31, 32
`Mass. Museum of Contemporary Art Found.,
`Inc. v. Buchel, 593 F.3d 38 (1st Cir. 2010) .............. 14
`Omega S.A. v. Costco Wholesale Corp., 541 F.3d
`982 (9th Cir. 2008), aff’d by an equally divid-
`ed Court, 131 S. Ct. 565 (2010) ................... 19, 25, 27
`Parfums Givenchy, Inc. v. Drug Emporium,
`Inc., 38 F.3d 477 (9th Cir. 1994) ....................... 23, 24
`Pub. Citizen v. United States Dep’t of Justice,
`491 U.S. 440 (1989). .................................................. 4
`
`

`
`iv
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES – Continued
`
`Page
`
`Quality King Distributors, Inc. v. L’anza Re-
`search International, Inc., 523 U.S. 135
`(1998) ............................................................... passim
`Sebastian Int’l, Inc. v. Consumer Contacts,
`Ltd., 847 F.2d 1093 (3d Cir. 1988) ............................ 7
`Stevens v. Gladding, 57 U.S. 447 (1855) ...................... 5
`Twentieth Century Music Corp. v. Aiken, 422
`U.S. 151 (1975) ........................................................ 17
`United States v. Wilson, 503 U.S. 329 (1992) .............. 4
`
`STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
`17 U.S.C. § 104 ........................................................... 28
`17 U.S.C. § 106 ................................................. 6, 11, 35
`17 U.S.C. § 109 ................................................... passim
`17 U.S.C. § 202 ............................................................. 5
`17 U.S.C. § 602 ................................................... passim
`18 U.S.C. § 2319A ....................................................... 34
`Copyright Act of 1909, Pub. L. No. 60-349, § 41,
`35 Stat. 1075 ........................................................... 20
`Council Directive 96/9 on the Legal Protection
`of Databases, 1996 O.J. (L77) ................................. 33
`Prioritizing Resources and Organization for
`Intellectual Property Act of 2008 (“PRO-IP
`Act”), Pub. L. No. 110-403, § 105 (2008) ...... 28, 29, 30
`
`
`
`
`

`
`v
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES – Continued
`
`Page
`
`Stop Counterfeiting in Manufactured Goods
`Act, Pub. L. No. 109-181, § (b)(3)(B), 120
`Stat. 285 (codified as amended at 18 U.S.C.
`§ 2320(e)(b) (2006)) ................................................. 18
`H.R. REP. NO. 60-2222 (1909) ....................................... 5
`S. REP. NO. 94-473 (1975) ........................................... 20
`H.R. REP. NO. 94-1476 (1976) ............................... 6, 20, 21
`H.R. REP. NO. 98-987 (1984) ......................................... 5, 7
`151 Cong. Rec. S12714-01 (2005) (statement of
`Rep. Lofgren) ........................................................... 18
`Copyright Law Revision Part 5: 1964 Revision
`Bill with Discussions and Comments .................... 21
`
`
`OTHER AUTHORITIES
`1 Goldstein on Copyright § 5.6.1.2.a (1989) .............. 22
`2 M. NIMMER, THE LAW OF COPYRIGHT § 8.12
`(1987) ................................................................... 7, 22
`Romana Autrey & Francesco Bova, Gray Mar-
`kets and Multinational Transfer Pricing,
`Harv. Bus. School Working Paper No. 09-098,
`at 1 (Feb. 25, 2009), available at http://www.
`hbs.edu/research/pdf/09-098.pdf ............................. 16
`Richard Colby, The First Sale Doctrine – The
`Defense That Never Was?, 32 J. COPYRIGHT
`SOC’Y U.S.A. 77, 89 (1984) ........................................ 7
`
`

`
`vi
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES – Continued
`
`Page
`
`Stephen W. Feingold, Parallel Importing Under
`the Copyright Act of 1976, 17 N.Y.U. J. INT’L
`L. & POL. 113 (1984) ................................................ 22
`Olga Kharif, The Global Economy’s Gray-
`Market Boom, BUSINESSWEEK ONLINE (Nov.
`30, 2000), available at http://www.business
`week.com/bwdaily/dnflash/nov2000/nf20001130_
`555.htm .................................................................... 16
`Michael J. Meurer, Copyright Law and Price
`Discrimination, 23 CARDOZO L. REV. 55,
`(2001) ....................................................................... 17
`U.S. GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE,
`COLLEGE TEXTBOOKS: ENHANCED OFFERINGS
`APPEAR TO DRIVE PRICE INCREASES (July
`2005), available at http://www.gao.gov/assets/
`250/247332.pdf .......................................................... 9
`Origin and Evolution of Toys for Tots, MARINE
`TOYS FOR TOTS FOUNDATION (last visited July
`4, 2012), http://www.toysfortots.org/about_
`toys_for_tots/toys_for_tots_program/origin_and_
`evolution.asp ........................................................... 12
`
`

`
`1
`
`INTEREST OF THE AMICI CURIAE
`Public Knowledge, the Electronic Frontier Foun-
`
`dation, U.S. PIRG, the American Association of Law
`Libraries, and the Special Libraries Association
`respectfully submit this brief to urge the Court to
`preserve the protections of the first sale doctrine
`and reject an interpretation of the Copyright Act that
`would significantly burden the public interest in
`the free flow of information.1 Public Knowledge is
`a nonprofit public interest organization devoted to
`protecting citizens’ rights in the emerging digital in-
`formation culture and focused on the intersection of
`intellectual property and technology. Public Knowl-
`edge seeks to guard the rights of consumers, innova-
`tors, and creators at all layers of our culture through
`legislative, administrative, grassroots, and legal ef-
`forts, including regular participation in copyright and
`other intellectual property cases that threaten con-
`sumers, trade, and innovation.
`
`The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) is a
`
`nonprofit civil liberties organization working to pro-
`tect consumer interests, innovation, and free expres-
`sion in the digital world. EFF and its more than
`
`
`
`1 No counsel for a party authored this brief in whole or in
`
`part, nor made a monetary contribution intended to fund the
`preparation or submission of this brief. No person other than
`amici curiae, or their counsel, made a monetary contribution to
`its preparation or submission. All parties have granted consent
`to the filing of this brief.
`
`

`
`2
`
`19,000 dues-paying members have a strong interest
`in assisting the courts and policy-makers in striking
`the appropriate balance between intellectual property
`and the public interest.
`
`The American Association of Law Libraries
`
`(“AALL”) is a nonprofit educational organization with
`over 5,000 members nationwide. Its members serve
`the information needs of the legal community and the
`public at more than 1,900 academic, firm, state, court
`and county law libraries nationwide. AALL’s mission
`is to promote and enhance the value of law libraries,
`to foster law librarianship, and to provide leadership
`and advocacy in the field of legal information and
`information policy.
`
`The Special Libraries Association (“SLA”) is a
`
`non-profit global organization for innovative infor-
`mation and knowledge professionals and their strate-
`gic partners. SLA serves some 10,000 corporate,
`academic, government, and other information special-
`ists in seventy-five countries. SLA promotes and
`strengthens its members through learning, advocacy,
`and networking initiatives.
`
`U.S. PIRG, the federation of state Public Inter-
`
`est Research Groups, is a national, nonprofit, non-
`partisan consumer advocacy organization that stands
`up to powerful special interests on behalf of the
`American public. U.S. PIRG has long worked to pro-
`mote the public interest on issues of consumer protec-
`tion and affordable higher education, and believes an
`
`

`
`3
`
`expansive interpretation of the first sale doctrine is in
`the best interest of students and consumers.
`
`---------------------------------  ---------------------------------
`
`SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT
`To the extent that the Court faces a split between
`
`the interpretations offered by the Second and Ninth
`Circuits, it faces two relatively unappealing options.
`The Second Circuit’s decision below could be inter-
`preted to require the blessing of the copyright holder
`for every distribution of every foreign-manufactured
`copy of a copyrighted work. On the other hand, the
`Ninth Circuit’s “authorized sale” exception, while
`allowing the free alienability of copies after an au-
`thorized sale in the United States, is not easy to
`square with either the plain text of the Copyright Act
`or its legislative history.
`
`Both of these problematic outcomes can be avoid-
`
`ed. Rather than embracing either interpretation, the
`Court can and should read the phrase “lawfully made
`under this title” as a comment on the lawfulness of a
`copy’s creation, and not on the location of its manu-
`facture. Such a reading will both adhere to the text of
`the Copyright Act and embrace the Act’s purpose by
`allowing consumers to freely dispose of their personal
`property, regardless of where it was assembled.
`
`
`
`---------------------------------  ---------------------------------
`
`
`
`

`
`4
`
`ARGUMENT
`I. The Second Circuit’s erroneous interpre-
`tation of section 109(a) will impair trade,
`innovation, the public interest, and the
`free market for copies of copyright-
`protected goods.
`The Second Circuit’s interpretation of sections
`
`109 and 602, if affirmed, creates enormous problems
`for secondary markets and for consumers. Contrary
`to the established principle that statutes should be
`interpreted to avoid absurd results, the Second Cir-
`cuit’s decision effectively gives copyright owners the
`right to control future redistributions of copies of
`works that were manufactured abroad, for the re-
`maining decades of the copyright term. This errone-
`ous reading imposes a variety of harms on consumers
`and retailers alike.
`
`
`
`A. Sections 109 and 602 should be inter-
`preted to avoid manifestly absurd re-
`sults.
`Courts have long recognized the principle that a
`
`statute’s language should be interpreted to avoid ab-
`surd results. See, e.g., United States v. Wilson, 503
`U.S. 329, 334 (1992). Courts appeal primarily to the
`words of a statute, while recognizing that “statutes
`always have some purpose or object to accomplish,
`whose sympathetic and imaginative discovery is the
`surest guide to their meaning.” Pub. Citizen v. United
`States Dep’t of Justice, 491 U.S. 440, 455 (1989)
`
`

`
`5
`
`(quoting Cabell v. Markham, 148 F.2d 737, 739 (2d
`Cir.) (Hand, J.), aff ’d, 326 U.S. 404 (1945)). As a
`matter of statutory interpretation, the practical ram-
`ifications of a particular reading may suggest to a
`court whether Congress was likely to have intended
`that interpretation when it enacted the law. See
`Church of the Holy Trinity v. United States, 143 U.S.
`457, 459 (1892) (“[F]requently words of general mean-
`ing are used in a statute, words broad enough to in-
`clude an act in question, and yet a consideration of
`the whole legislation, or of the circumstances sur-
`rounding its enactment, or of the absurd results
`which follow from giving such broad meaning to the
`words, makes it unreasonable to believe that the
`legislator intended to include the particular act.”).
`
`The first sale doctrine, codified at 17 U.S.C.
`
`§ 109, embodies Congress’s intent to prevent copy-
`right owners from exercising authority over physical
`copies after they have exhausted their ownership
`interest in those copies. See H.R. REP. NO. 60-2222, at
`19 (1909) (“[I]t would be most unwise to permit the
`copyright proprietor to exercise any control whatever
`over the article which is the subject of copyright after
`said proprietor has made the first sale”). This follows
`from the well-established principle that ownership of
`the physical object containing a copyright-protected
`work is distinct from ownership of the copyright
`itself. See 17 U.S.C. § 202 (2006); Stevens v. Glad-
`ding, 57 U.S. 447, 452-53 (1855). See also H.R. REP.
`NO. 98-987, at 2 (1984) (“the first sale doctrine has its
`
`

`
`6
`
`roots in the English common law rule against re-
`straints on alienation of property”).
`
`As this Court noted in Quality King Distributors,
`
`Inc. v. L’anza Research International, Inc., “[t]here is
`no reason to assume that Congress intended either
`§ 109(a) or the earlier codifications of the [first sale]
`doctrine to limit its broad scope.” 523 U.S. 135, 152
`(1998). The House Report from Congress’s enactment
`of the current version of the first sale doctrine does
`not even mention place of manufacture. In fact, the
`Report states that “Section 109(a) restates and con-
`firms the principle that, where the copyright owner
`has transferred ownership of a particular copy . . . of
`a work, the person to whom the copy . . . is trans-
`ferred is entitled to dispose of it by sale, rental, or any
`other means.” H.R. REP. NO. 94-1476, at 79 (1976).
`
`The decision below, in particular, interprets sec-
`
`tion 109 so narrowly that sections 106 and 602 would
`entirely preclude secondary markets for all works
`that have been manufactured abroad. This leads to a
`manifestly absurd result that would both interfere
`with individuals’ personal property rights and impose
`substantial transaction costs on consumers and busi-
`nesses that operate in resale markets across many
`different commercial industries, contrary to the pur-
`poses of the Copyright Act and decades of legal inter-
`pretation.
`
`
`
`
`

`
`7
`
`B. The Second Circuit’s decision permits
`copyright owners to indefinitely con-
`trol the distribution of all foreign-
`manufactured copies.
`Like the Ninth Circuit, the Second Circuit has
`
`concluded that the first sale doctrine does not allow
`buyers to distribute copies if the copies were origi-
`nally manufactured abroad. Unlike the Ninth Circuit,
`however, the Second Circuit has declined to create
`an exception to sections 109 and 602 for foreign-
`manufactured goods that are sold within the United
`States with the permission of the copyright owner.
`As a result, absent the permission of the copy-
`right holder, any distribution or redistribution of any
`foreign-manufactured copy could infringe copyright.
`This result undoes 150 years of common and statu-
`tory law establishing that the rightful owner of a
`physical copy of a work can dispose of that copy as he
`or she wishes. See Sebastian Int’l, Inc. v. Consumer
`Contacts, Ltd., 847 F.2d 1093, 1096 (3d Cir. 1988)
`(“The first sale rule is statutory, but finds its origins
`in the common law aversion to limiting the alienation
`of personal property.”) (citing Burke & Van Heusen,
`Inc. v. Arrow Drug, Inc., 233 F. Supp. 881, 883 (E.D.
`Pa. 1964); Richard Colby, The First Sale Doctrine –
`The Defense That Never Was?, 32 J. COPYRIGHT SOC’Y
`U.S.A. 77, 89 (1984); H.R. REP. NO. 98-987, at 2
`(1984); 2 M. NIMMER, THE LAW OF COPYRIGHT § 8.12
`(1987)).
`
`Additionally, nearly any goods can have copies of
`
`copyrighted works affixed to them or incorporated
`
`

`
`8
`
`into the goods’ packaging, making the consequences
`of the Second Circuit’s interpretation difficult to
`understate. See, e.g., Quality King Distribs., Inc. v.
`L’anza Research Int’l, Inc., 523 U.S. 135 (1998) (copy-
`right lawsuit over labels affixed to hair care prod-
`ucts). Thus, the Second Circuit’s interpretation in this
`case would have a practical impact on, for example, a
`non-copyright-protected toy that is packaged in a box
`with copyright-protected visual art affixed to it, so
`long as the consumer desires to resell or give away
`the toy inside the original packaging.
`
`
`
`1. New impediments to the resale of
`lawfully purchased goods harm U.S.
`consumers and businesses.
`The Second Circuit’s interpretation of sections
`
`109 and 602 is likely to have dangerous consequences
`for both consumers and businesses that operate in
`resale markets. The court’s reading of section 109 ef-
`fectively removes a vast swath of copyright-protected
`goods from the well-established protections of the
`first sale doctrine. This precludes secondary markets
`for many goods entirely and creates substantial un-
`certainty for many other goods if the owner does not
`know where every copyrightable component of the
`product was manufactured. By extending liability for
`selling, lending, or otherwise disposing of lawfully
`purchased copies of copyright-protected works, the
`Second Circuit has exposed to legal risk a wide swath
`of activities, from holding a weekend garage sale, to
`selling a used car, to lending books to friends or
`
`

`
`9
`
`patrons, to providing online platforms for reselling
`goods.
`
`The decision below has a particular impact on the
`
`market for used textbooks. Students in the United
`States have suffered from price discrimination by
`textbook publishers for years, and only recently have
`tools like more efficient shipping technology and the
`Internet enabled students to access lawfully pur-
`chased textbooks at more affordable prices. In 2005,
`the United States Government Accountability Office
`found that college textbook prices in the United
`States have risen 186% in the last two decades –
`more than twice the rate of inflation. U.S. GOVERN-
`MENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE, COLLEGE TEXTBOOKS:
`ENHANCED OFFERINGS APPEAR TO DRIVE PRICE IN-
`CREASES (July 2005), available at http://www.gao.gov/
`assets/250/247332.pdf. In the 2003-2004 school year,
`the average estimated cost of textbooks for full-time
`students at four-year public institutions in the United
`States was $898 per year. Id. at 2. Industry repre-
`sentatives and public interest groups have expressed
`concern that publishers unnecessarily raise textbook
`prices by revising textbooks frequently, publishing
`custom textbooks, issuing books in loose-leaf form,
`and making material available online through the use
`of a temporary password. Id. at 18-21. Publishers
`maintain these high prices, in part, by taking steps to
`isolate the United States market, where market
`conditions allow them to extract higher prices from
`students, while selling textbooks just above cost to
`students in other countries. Id. at 21-22. If the
`
`

`
`10
`
`Second Circuit’s decision is reversed, publishers will
`still be free to engage in the same marketing prac-
`tices they currently use, but may also face legitimate
`competition from the books they have sold at lower
`prices in other parts of the world.
`
`To be clear, however, the potential impact of the
`
`decision reaches well beyond the redistribution of
`textbooks, or even classic copyright-protected works
`like sound recordings, audiovisual works, composi-
`tions, paintings, drawings, and sculptures. Today, a
`wide range of other commercial products also con-
`tain copyright-protected computer programs, such as
`automobiles, microwaves, calculators, mobile phones,
`tablets, and personal computers. Moreover, the pack-
`aging for a product often contains copies of copyright-
`protected visual art. See, e.g., Denbicare U.S.A. Inc. v.
`Toys “R” Us, Inc., 84 F.3d 1143, 1145 (9th Cir. 1996)
`(plaintiff ’s lawsuit based in part on copyright in-
`fringement of the packaging for its non-copyrighted
`product).
`
`Further, since the Second Circuit’s interpretation
`
`hinges upon the place of manufacture and not upon
`the occurrence of a first sale completed with the
`permission of the copyright owner, individuals or
`entities may be liable for infringement even if they
`purchased the product in the United States, and even
`if the product has already been sold and re-sold
`several times. Service providers that provide online
`platforms for resale marketplaces, such as eBay or
`Amazon.com, could be threatened with secondary
`liability for hosting offers for infringing sales on their
`
`

`
`11
`
`websites. Such websites would have a strong incen-
`tive to stop hosting the sale of many used books and
`other products entirely. Similarly, physical second-
`hand shops, like the Salvation Army, would be effec-
`tively prohibited from selling used goods that contain
`copies of copyright-protected works.
`
`Notably, given that the distribution right of sec-
`
`tion 106(3) covers far more than sales, the ramifi-
`cations of the decision below are not limited to
`commercial transactions. Thus, an interpretation of
`section 109(a) that allows the distribution right to be
`resurrected at any point in the chain of ownership
`would also inhibit actors from lending or giving away
`copies of copyright-protected works that were manu-
`factured abroad. Libraries, which rely heavily upon
`the first sale doctrine to lend copies of books to the
`public, are especially vulnerable. Without the protec-
`tion of section 109(a) for foreign-printed books, librar-
`ies could be forced to affirmatively research the place
`of manufacture for every book they acquire, even
`if that acquisition is completed within the United
`States, and either refuse to stock foreign manufac-
`tured copies of books or seek countless licenses from
`copyright owners to offer those books to the public.
`Similarly, individuals would be unable to loan a book,
`magazine, or newspaper to a friend if the copy was
`created abroad. This would have a particularly harsh
`effect on individuals who speak and read foreign
`languages, because foreign-language products are
`more likely to come from foreign publishers.
`
`

`
`12
`
`By inhibiting the public’s ability to transfer own-
`
`ership, even gratuitously, of foreign-manufactured
`copies, the Second Circuit’s interpretation could even
`impair charitable giving. For example, the very popu-
`lar and successful Marine Toys for Tots Foundation
`collects presents for economically disadvantaged chil-
`dren in the weeks surrounding Christmas. For sixty-
`three years, Toys for Tots has collected donated toys
`from the public and distributed more than 400 mil-
`lion toys to more than 188 million children. Origin
`and Evolution of Toys for Tots, MARINE TOYS FOR TOTS
`FOUNDATION (last visited July 4, 2012), http://www.
`toysfortots.org/about_toys_for_tots/toys_for_tots_program/
`origin_and_evolution.asp. Under the Second Circuit’s
`interpretation of section 109(a), both Toys for Tots
`and the individuals donating toys to Toys for Tots are
`liable for copyright infringement for all copyrightable
`toys or toy packages that were manufactured outside
`of the United States.2
`
`The Second Circuit’s decision has enormous
`
`impact upon a wide variety of product industries, and
`imposes tangible harms on consumers who would
`
`
`2 Toys may be subject to copyright protection in a number of
`
`ways, so long as they are not uncopyrightable as useful articles.
`See, e.g., Hasbro Bradley, Inc. v. Sparkle Toys, Inc., 780 F.2d 189,
`192 (2d Cir. 1985) (holding that transforming robotic action
`figure qualifies for copyright protection). An action figure may
`receive copyright protection as a sculptural work, a coloring
`book may contain copyright-protected graphic or pictorial works,
`or a doll may sing a copyright-protected song via a copyright-
`protected sound recording.
`
`

`
`13
`
`otherwise participate in the resale market for lawful-
`ly purchased goods.
`
`
`
`2. Copyright owners may attempt to
`seize indefinite control over distri-
`bution by moving their manufac-
`turing activities abroad.
`The decision below could also encourage copy-
`
`right owners to deliberately foreclose secondary
`markets by moving their manufacturing operations
`abroad. As discussed above, copyright owners would
`gain substantial new control over the distribution of
`copies of their works if they could exercise exclusive
`authority over a copy every time it changes hands.
`This power is potentially very lucrative for manufac-
`turers that wish to prevent consumers from buying
`used copies or borrowing copies from friends. If a
`consumer has no access to a used or borrowed copy of
`a work, she must purchase a new copy at a substan-
`tially higher cost than she would have otherwise
`faced, or go without the good. This liability attaches
`regardless of how many times that particular copy
`has been sold, re-sold, and given away before it
`reached the consumer. The Second Circuit’s decision
`thus gives copyright owners a perverse incentive to
`move manufacturing or other production activities
`out of the United States to retain indefinite control
`over copies of their works.
`
`Put another way, the decision below encourages
`
`at least two perverse outcomes: American consumers
`
`

`
`14
`
`lose access to affordable used copies of products, and
`companies move American manufacturing and re-
`lated jobs overseas. It is difficult to imagine that
`Congress intended these results.
`
`
`
`3. The lower court’s interpretation of
`“lawfully made under this title” could
`preclude consumers from display-
`ing their lawfully acquired copies.
`The Second Circuit’s interpretation of the phrase
`
`“lawfully made under this title” for the purposes of
`section 109(a) could also have far-reaching conse-
`quences for other provisions of the Copyright Act that
`use the same phrase. If future court decisions follow
`the Second Circuit’s interpretation of this phrase, the
`application of all of these provisions could be limited
`to copies manufactured in the United States.
`
`For example, section 109(c) of the Copyright Act
`
`also uses the phrase “lawfully made under this title”
`to grant the owner of a copy the right to publicly
`display that copy. 17 U.S.C. § 109(c). Courts have
`repeatedly interpreted this phrase to preclude apply-
`ing section 109(c) to copies “created in violation of the
`artist’s rights,” not merely copies made outside of the
`United States. See Mass. Museum of Contemporary
`Art Found., Inc. v. Buchel, 593 F.3d 38, 63-64 (1st Cir.
`2010); Cariou v. Prince, 784 F. Supp. 2d 337, 356
`(S.D.N.Y. 2011) (paintings may not be publicly dis-
`played under section 109(c) because the paintings
`infringed plaintiff ’s copyrights); Hoepker v. Kruger,
`
`

`
`15
`
`200 F. Supp. 2d 340, 342 (S.D.N.Y. 2002) (defendant
`may publicly display a lawfully owned copy of a
`photograph under section 109(c) despite the fact that
`the photograph was made in Germany). If “lawfully
`made under this title” in section 109(c) is interpreted
`identically to the Second Circuit’s reading of “lawfully
`made under this title” in section 109(a), every owner
`of a copy of a copyright-protected work, particularly
`visual artworks, would need to obtain a license to
`display that copy if the work was created outside of
`the United States. Museums, particularly those with
`substantial collections of foreign paintings, photo-
`graphs, drawings, and sculptures, would need to ob-
`tain a new license for every piece of foreign-made
`art in their collections, or hide those collections from
`the public indefinitely. Businesses, libraries, and any
`other entity with a physical space open to the public
`would need to remove all foreign artworks from their
`lobbies, hallways, and other public spaces. Again,
`Congress could not have intended a result that so
`manifestly contravenes sound public policy and com-
`mon sense.
`
`
`
`C. The decision below would authorize
`copyright owners to enjoin parallel
`imports, contrary to Congress’s intent
`and consumers’ interest.
`Parallel imports benefit both consumers who rely
`
`upon affordable access to goods and businesses that
`routinely bring lawfully purchased goods into the
`United States for resale. Contrary to Congress’s
`
`

`
`16
`
`broader intent, the decision below could allow copy-
`right owners to unilaterally block nearly all parallel
`imports for goods they had already sold and parted
`with.
`
`The increase in parallel importation in recent
`
`years is a result of cost reductions from new and
`improved technologies. This means that, when im-
`porters market their products at inflated prices in
`some geographical markets but not others, they face
`competition from their own products sold at lower
`prices elsewhere. This is not a new phenomenon:
`historically, new technology has consistently broken
`down barr

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket