The New York Times published an excellent editorial yesterday that explains how a landmark Supreme Court copyright case could undercut the U.S. information industry. The Times breaks down Kirtsaeng v. Wiley as follows:

At stake in this important and knotty case is whether copyright holders — publishers, filmmakers, musicians and creative artists of all sorts — can sell their copyrighted works abroad at prices different from what they charge in the American market and rely on copyright law to help maintain the separate pricing without having importers profit from the difference.

The case establishes whether the U.S. Copyright Act can be interpreted to allow copyright holders to use sensible market segmentation strategies. SIIA hopes the justices agree that publishers should be able to set lower prices in less-developed countries, without importers snatching their products up and using them to undercut American sales.

This isn’t a new notion–it’s already codified in the Copyright Act. The Times explains:

… the Copyright Act prohibits anyone from importing into the United States copyrighted works without the copyright holder’s approval. That provision would be seriously limited if copies of a work made abroad could be resold by importers in this country without constraint.

When importers exploit discounts that are meant for poor students in undeveloped nations, they aren’t just denying those students an education–they are threatening American publishers’ ability to do business abroad.

For more information, read SIIA’s amicus brief in the case, which defends the view that these purchases violate U.S. copyright law, since the first sale doctrine does not apply to a work made and sold abroad.

Laura Greenback is Communications Director at SIIA. Follow the SIIA Public Policy team at @SIIAPolicy.