I just want to reiterate that I fundamentally disagree with this idea that "theft" can only ever be about "removing someone's access to a physical object."
If I take an idea that you had and pass it off as my own, most people would say I've "stolen" your idea and that I've committed "theft". If you take my personal credentials and use them to commit fraudulent financial transactions, most people would say you've committed "identity theft." In both of those situations, the original idea or identity holder is not being "deprived" of their idea/identity, but the idea or identity is still being absolutely "stolen" to be used in an unauthorized manner.
Call it "intellectual property theft" if you want, or "licensing theft" or whatever. But the debate over the exact parlance to use is ultimately inane, because we all know what's being said.
If I take an idea that you had and pass it off as my own, most people would say I've "stolen" your idea and that I've committed "theft". If you take my personal credentials and use them to commit fraudulent financial transactions, most people would say you've committed "identity theft." In both of those situations, the original idea or identity holder is not being "deprived" of their idea/identity, but the idea or identity is still being absolutely "stolen" to be used in an unauthorized manner.
Call it "intellectual property theft" if you want, or "licensing theft" or whatever. But the debate over the exact parlance to use is ultimately inane, because we all know what's being said.