There's a typo in the 3d para. and at the bottom. It should say 602(a) not 106(3). 106 delineates the rights. (And those rights are subject to 109.) 602 deli

There's a typo in the 3d para. and at the bottom. It should say 602(a) not 106(3). 106 delineates the rights. (And those rights are subject to 109.) 602 delineates what is infringement. The dissent in the 2d Cir. case points out that 602 derives from 106. True, but there's no precedent that says 109 can subjugate 602. In fact, the S. Ct. in Quality King was quite clear: 602 is broader than 109. If we're atlking about importing quantities of goods for resale in the U.S., either they cannot be imported or the importer will pay dearly in tariffs. That is how the major American corporations, who lobby for the the copyright laws, doing business globally wanted it. And that is how it shall be. No court should be saying 109 trumps 602. This would open the floodgates to parallel imports. It would allow an industry to flourish that undercuts U.S. pricing, i.e. the prices American companies want to charge Americans. These companies that sell goods in many markets worlwide are already unhappy with countries that allow parallel imports since consumers in those countries can potentially buy goods at the lowest prices worldwide, not just at the price an American company thinks consumers in that country should pay. In sum, it destroys the differential pricing schemes these companies use to maximize profits.