There is no such thing as "Stolen" content.
Consider a novelist who works for 10 years on her novel. A hacker steals the document from her computer and publishes it online under his own name. He makes $100M.
Is it wrong for the novelist to feel like someone stole from her? What word would you use instead?
Since internet isn't free, you're still paying for content. At what point are you paying "enough" that the information isn't public anymore?
Are you saying no one should monetize their content using ads unless they're willing to allow anyone else to do that as well?
https://googleblog.blogspot.com/2011/02/microsofts-bing-uses...
http://searchengineland.com/google-bing-is-cheating-copying-...
Infringing. (duh)
Different circumstances, different terminology. The correct terminology (see US Title 17 or CDPA 1988) is "infringing". Anyone who insists on using the word "stolen" is signalling their ignorance of the first, most basic fact of copyright law.
1.) If the item is being given away for free, there can still be infringement.
2.) If a person would never purchase an item at the available price (due to the law of supply and demand for example), that person might still infringe. No revenue was lost or gained since the transaction would never have completed at the existing price.
In either of those cases, no revenue was "stolen", but infringement still occurred. These are some of the many reasons that stealing isn't a good way to describe copyright infringement.
If I point a gun to your face and take your money, that's a law being broken, but taking that money is not stealing, it's robbery.
If I threaten to expose some dirty secrets and demand money or things from you, that's blackmail but not stealing.
If I take your textual content and re-publish it under my own name, then that's an infringing use but again, not stealing.
Saying that someone is "stealing" when they infringe copyright is like saying someone is "killing you" when they present convincing arguments against your cause. It isn't literally stealing or killing, it's an exaggeration made for emphasis.
The reason there is so much contention is that a) the same language has been extremely common among hysterical content industry lobbyists who insist that it is literally stealing, and b) stealing and copyright infringement are both unlawful (and therefore more easily confused) even though there remains a meaningful distinction between stealing and copying.
But that distinction is very important in practice because we can't treat stealing and infringement the same. If you don't like someone's speech you can't be allowed to steal any of their webservers but you have to be allowed to copy some of their work in order to effectively criticize them.