Copyright is not *properly* about the copies, it is about the COPYING.
Wiley wants to make this about the copies. It jumps into the sec106 quagmire but wants sec 109 struck out on a semantic quibble concerning the words 'lawfully made under this title' (which Scotus screwed up dealing with Omega v Costco inho).
Wiley wants 'lawfully made' to modify 'under this title', so that something not made in the USA with the consent of the US copyright owner is 'not lawfully made under this title'.
I have not seen any mention of the Berne Convention. But that Convention effectively means that *any* copyrighted work, produced by a national of a Convention country and subject to copyright in his country, is granted copyright protection in all other Convention countries.
I presume that Wiley published first in the US, and possibly in other places within 30 days of the US publication.
So Wiley's publication of the book in Thailand, is with Wiley's consent. That consent pursuant to the Berne Convention is good worldwide: the Convention countries agreed to accept and uphold minimum mutual standards.
Thus those books were 'lawfully made under this title': they were made with the consent of the copyright owner.
Wiley is trying to say that the copyright it (or its subsidiary) holds is a different copyright, but it has to argue that it is for the same book (otherwise there would be no question: 2 different books/copyrights, Wiley cannot object).
I am surprised that the effect of the Berne Convention was not mentioned, since that Convention, which expands the extent of a US copyright's 'aura' also extends the owners' consent when view in this manner.
Dyspeptic Curmudgeon has not submitted any stories.