When collecting usage data, the data is different each time you collect it, and its not a one-time event, it happens over and over.
I'm not condoning copying games, just saying its not a fair comparison to gathering your usage data.
And with respect to the gp comment, this is actually different than copyright infringement, where the infringer is not depriving the copyright holder of anything, except potentially a business model based on withholding information. There is obviously a lively debate about the appropriate reach of copyright law, but imo at least, copyrights are more abstract that the privacy rights that are being infringed through surreptitious data collection
It's not always black and white as the OP demonstrates. Store owners memorize their customer's preferences or habits in hoping of their return; waiters do so to please their customers for tips. The customers weren't consented but that still isn't stealing. Scaling it up, small mom and pop stores compete with big box chain by providing better customer services. They can't do that without knowing their customers. That isn't stealing either.
So where is the line? I'd argue collecting customer's information en mass for the purpose of reselling being the line and that isn't perfect either.
Why would the uniqueness matter?
Again, a dollar bill is a widely-available for sale finished product.