It does not. The copyrighted work is the code for the software, and making modifications means modifying the copyrighted software. Copyright has no notion of "m

It does not. The copyrighted work is the code for the software, and making modifications means modifying the copyrighted software. Copyright has no notion of "modification" in the sense of changing the final behavior. It's strictly about making changes to the copyrighted work itself. This is why things can get interesting with binary hooks and patches, which, depending on how they're done, can be argued not to be modifying the copyrighted work (e.g. a hook done via a hardware debug breakpoint does not require making any alterations to the target software per se, in the copyright sense). Similarly, interpreting (e.g. emulating) software is widely understood to be legal since you aren't modifying the underlying software, even if the emulator causes it to behave differently from the original intent. Of course, then things get murky again with emulation techniques such as JIT, which could be argued to be creating a transient derivative work. Or not so transient, in the case of AOT. I would dare say there is a legal argument to be made that running older x86 Mac apps on an M1 Mac could constitute unauthorized creation of a derivative work (since it outright caches AOT recompiled versions of the apps you run using Rosetta). Of course, this seems stupid from a technical point of view, but I'd love to see if there is prior case law on this kind of situation, where a newly introduced technological mechanism can conceivably cause re-classification of the copyright effects of merely running software. It's certainly a deep rabbit hole to go into.