Look up what moral rights mean.
My apologies. I thought you were referring to "rights" which had something to do with morality, rather than a loaded phrase invented by the "intellectual property" brigade.
It is unfortunate (albeit quite deliberate, I'm sure) that the co-opting of such phrasses into specific meanings different from those of their component words, makes discussions on the topic difficult.
A painting as an unique object is not comparable to a work that is directly reproducible. However, reproductions of it can be licensed. Furthermore, if you buy a painting, it's assumed that that object belongs to you although the moral right is not automatically transferred with the copyright. Besides, fatuous comparisons with other works are pointless.
Since you appear to be utterly without imagination, I'll change the words a bit:
If I buy a print of a painting, I can write all over it in black marker, piss on it, then throw it into the fireplace and the artist has absolutely no right - moral or otherwise - to interfere.
Or another, perhaps more germane, example:
I have numerous electronic copies of photos taken at my wedding. The copyright for these belongs to the photographer, however, I am perfectly within my rights (legal, moral, or otherwise) to make changes to my copies. For example, I could use photoshop to scribble in moustaches on all the bridesmaids, or change the colour of their dresses, or move swap people heads around. Nothing there is illegal or immoral (at least from the perspective of copyright).
No you don't, because it's not 'your' copy. Look up what moral rights mean.
Again, my apologies for thinking you were using the phrase in some way relevant to the definitions of the words that make it up, rather than as a phrase with some other definition. I'll rephrase to avoid the confusion:
If I buy a piece of "workl" from its creator, I have the "right" to modify that copy, and that is in no way immoral.
Of course it is. Because it's distributing, without permission, the work of the licensee.
No, it's reselling a previously bought copy. No different to someone reselling a CD.
Incorrect. You don't have to even modify it, distributing it without permission is enough.
Reselling an owned copy (without retaining a copy) is not "distribution".
I note that the absurd appeal to 'fair use' has been dropped.
Indeed. It's apparently pointless trying to discuss anything outside the box.
Anyone who thinks copyrighting work is a gravy train is misinformed and what's more, shows utter contempt for a vital process of commerce. Thanks for proving my point.
Copyright is most certainly a gravy train. What other form of "work" lets you sell the result over and over and over and over and over and over again without having to expend any additional effort ? Who _wouldn't_ be overjoyed at the possibility of doing a job once, then being paid for the rest of their lives ?
