[Stone Mountain]

The creator cannot claim that his artistic is damaged because the buyer can do that anyway.

I disagree with this. If the altered work isn't distributed, then his art isn't compromised. If it is distributed, I understand why a producer wouldn't want inferior copies of his movies floating around out there.

[Hendrix]

"I disagree with this. If the altered work isn't distributed, then his art isn't compromised. If it is distributed, I understand why a producer wouldn't want inferior copies of his movies floating around out there."

It is not distributed. That is my point. Each buyer is paying a company to alter it for that buyer and that buyer alone. That is why the distinction has no merit. If a buyer can alter it himself and it is legal, and if the buyer can pay someone to alter it after the buyer buys it, there is no practical distinciton for buying it with the service already done to it.