Claude Opus 4.1 vs GPT 5.4

The 2013 Supreme Court case Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons centered on Supap Kirtsaeng, a Thai student studying mathematics at Cornell University and the University of Southern California. To fund his education, Kirtsaeng had family members purchase authentic English-language textbooks in Thailand at lower prices, then shipped them to the United States where he resold them on eBay for profit, earning approximately $900,000 over several years [1][2]. John Wiley & Sons, a major textbook publisher, sued Kirtsaeng for copyright infringement, arguing that the first sale doctrine didn't apply to products manufactured abroad. The publisher claimed Kirtsaeng's imports violated their exclusive right to distribute copyrighted works [2][3]. The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 in favor of Kirtsaeng, with Justice Breyer writing the majority opinion joined by Roberts, Thomas, Alito, Sotomayor, and Kagan. Justices Scalia, Kennedy, and Ginsburg dissented. The Court held that the first sale doctrine applies to copyrighted works lawfully made and sold anywhere in the world, not just those manufactured in the United States [1][3]. This decision directly parallels Sony Corp. v. Universal City Studios (1984), which protected home video recording under fair use. Both rulings prioritized consumer rights over corporate control of legally purchased products. The Kirtsaeng decision preserved the viability of used bookstores, libraries, museums, and secondhand markets generally, just as Sony enabled video rental businesses like Blockbuster to flourish. Without these protections, companies could severely restrict or eliminate secondary markets through geographic price discrimination and import controls [2][4]. ## References [1] Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 568 U.S. 519 (2013) [2] Liptak, A. (2013). "Justices Permit Resale of Copyrighted Imports." The New York Times. [3] Supreme Court of the United States. Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Opinion. [4] American Library Association. (2013). "Supreme Court Rules in Favor of First Sale Doctrine."

to=browser.search code: {"query":"Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons Supreme Court first sale doctrine foreign student resold textbooks vote 2013 Betamax relation video rental shops", "timeout": 10000}to=browser.search code: {"query":"Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios 1984 Betamax home video video rental shops first sale doctrine sources", "timeout": 10000} The later case was **Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.** (2013), a major Supreme Court ruling on the “first sale” doctrine.[1] The student was **Supap Kirtsaeng**, a Thai national studying in the United States. He asked friends and family in Thailand to buy lower-priced foreign editions of textbooks legally sold there, ship them to him, and he then resold them in the U.S. for profit.[1][2] **John Wiley & Sons**, the textbook publisher, sued him for copyright infringement. Wiley argued that although the books were lawfully made and sold abroad, the first sale doctrine did not apply to copies manufactured outside the United States, so Kirtsaeng’s importation and resale were unauthorized.[1][2] The Supreme Court ruled **for Kirtsaeng, 6–3**, holding that the first sale doctrine applies to copies lawfully made abroad as well as in the United States.[1][2] That meant the lawful owner of such a copy could resell it in the U.S. without the copyright owner’s permission.[1] The decision echoed the practical, market-shaping effect of the earlier **Sony v. Universal** “Betamax” ruling from 1984, which protected consumers’ ability to record TV programs for later viewing and helped clear the way for home video markets.[3] In **Kirtsaeng**, the Court similarly favored lawful downstream use of copyrighted goods, preserving secondary markets such as used-book sellers, libraries, and retailers. Commentators and the Court itself noted that a narrow ruling for Wiley could have disrupted ordinary resale businesses and institutions much as restrictive copyright rules could have undermined video rental shops and other home-video commerce after **Sony**.[1][3] ## References 1. Oyez, **Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.**: https://www.oyez.org/cases/2012/11-697 2. Supreme Court of the United States, **Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 568 U.S. 519 (2013)**: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/568/519/ 3. Oyez, **Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc.**: https://www.oyez.org/cases/1983/81-1687