While the idea that "no damage is done" because the origina…

While the idea that "no damage is done" because the original owner still has their key might seem logical on the surface, it misses the true nature of a private key. It's not just any piece of duplicable information; it's a unique credential for control and authentication. So when it's copied without authorization, it's not simply replication; it's the usurpation of a digital identity and the capabilities linked to it.
The "theft" here isn't the physical loss of an object, but the loss of exclusivity and the trust that are fundamental to digital security. The consequences of someone else using your key, even if you still have it, can be catastrophic, from financial fraud to unauthorized access to personal information. This really shows that the "no harm" claim is untenable when we're talking about such a critical tool for digital identity and security.
It feels like your argument pushes us to consider whether private keys, given their vital function, need a distinct legal or ethical framework that goes beyond traditional intellectual property definitions.