[ReignOfError]

The reason for copyright law is to ensure the copyright holder of being able to profit from their work.

No. The purpose of copyright and patent law, as laid out in the US Constitution, is to reserve exclusive rights for a limited time so as to encourage the useful arts. Profit is one of the reasons for that protection, but not the only one. If an artist can retain control over his creation, more artists will have more incentive to create. That serves the public good.

If no loss of money occurs, no laws are broken.

Um, because you made that up? If I steal your car and leave a check for its market value, was there no crime? I'm flabbergasted that you can make this argument with (as far as ASCII can tell) a straight face.

[killjoy]

No. The purpose of copyright and patent law, as laid out in the US Constitution, is to reserve exclusive rights for a limited time so as to encourage the useful arts. Profit is one of the reasons for that protection, but not the only one. If an artist can retain control over his creation, more artists will have more incentive to create. That serves the public good.

Of course. Nobody is arguing that they should be deprived of exclusive rights. The argument is if it is legal to modify an item after it is legally purchased.

Um, because you made that up? If I steal your car and leave a check for its market value, was there no crime? I'm flabbergasted that you can make this argument with (as far as ASCII can tell) a straight face.

Incredibly bad example of a strawman argument.