The trouble with the term identity theft is that there typically _is_ actual stealing going on, but that it's not actually your identity that is being stolen.

Identity thieves don't normally just go around introducing themselves to strangers with the stolen identity. Were that the case, it would rarely be a problem. They apply for loans with no intention to repay, and buy goods with the goal of landing the bill with the real owner of the identity.

It's curious that you mention this because I had my identity stolen when I went to college. A Chinese student was currently using my SS# at a school. The same school. I had to go out of my way to prove I was the correct owner of the number.

He is charging loans on my account. Is that not a form of theft?

This is why I used the words "typically" and "rarely" above, but I'd still argue that your identity wasn't the thing that was stolen from you, rather that they used your identity to steal something, either from you or someone else.

Not being from the same country as you, I don't really understand what it means to have someone else use your social security number, but as I said above, it is theft, not of your identity, but of the money being lent to the false "you".

Basically, the term "identity theft" could be likened to "knife crime" or "gun deaths". "Knife crime" rarely refers to the theft of a knife, but to crime (robbery, assault, murder) committed using a knife.

So using your reasoning, we can still call piracy "theft"?

If you can show that something is being stolen, then yes. If, on the other hand, no stealing is going on, then no.

The problem I have with the "piracy is theft" thing is that I think its use makes it harder to convince people who counter with arguments saying that the original owner still has the "stolen" item.

For one thing, it's an extra step one needn't take. First you have to convince them that it is actually theft, then you have to convince them that they should do something about it.

If you start with the simple position of "this thing normally costs money, and you haven't paid for it", then you can get straight to the heart of the matter.

Note that I say "convince" and not "be more right than". People indulge in all sorts of self-justification and moral balancing, particularly if they can convince themselves that it's a victimless crime.

"They apply for loans with no intention to repay, and buy goods with the goal of landing the bill with the real owner of the identity."

Which technically is fraud. Another word that can be used when they actually go to the bank, etc.

Copying is just copying. By using it for your own benefit however, you are directly influencing (for the better or worse, but definitely without permission) the original's value, worth, rights.

If you were just copying someone's identity, you wouldn't do anything with it would you?