(1) is immaterial to the discussion; I can copy to my heart's content in private, and as long as I don't distribute it, no one will know, and no one will take any action against me. At any rate, fair use defenses #1 and #4[0] are pretty compelling to cover private, non-distributive copying.
(2) is similar to (1) in that it has no teeth until you try to distribute your derivative work.
(3) is explicitly about distribution.
(4) & (5) & (6) are about public display/performance, which don't apply to software, and I would argue are also about distribution anyway.
Courts enforce the rights independently. You can bring a claim under any of them. I'm not aware of any law that you must also claim distribution.
Reproduction is inherent in execution, development, etc. on computers. See "licensed, not sold" and the analysis of the ways 117 differs from the CONTU rec.
(1) is immaterial to the discussion; I can copy to my heart's content in private, and as long as I don't distribute it, no one will know, and no one will take any action against me. At any rate, fair use defenses #1 and #4[0] are pretty compelling to cover private, non-distributive copying.
(2) is similar to (1) in that it has no teeth until you try to distribute your derivative work.
(3) is explicitly about distribution.
(4) & (5) & (6) are about public display/performance, which don't apply to software, and I would argue are also about distribution anyway.
[0] https://www.copyright.gov/fair-use/