I can't tell if you're joking, but "infringe" means "to violate" which implies that there is a law or agreement that's being broken. That makes it sound like you agree with the idea that this is stealing.
I absolutely do not agree with the idea that this is stealing. How can it be stealing, when the owner still has the thing that was supposedly stolen?
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.
So it is "stealing" to produce a superior, cheaper, but otherwise virtually identical product or service that sells better and displaces a competitor's revenue? Strange, I thought that was the whole basis of market economics.
The revenue was lost.
Look at legal web sites. There is a specific vocabulary.
The language you are using is from what I call "Mcadonalds Journalism" sites who have a vested interest in vilifying anyone who infringes. By politicising the language, these sites use emotive language to sway your views.
I'm sure these are articles on this. It's similar to yellow journalism.
The law you're looking for is ~copyright~. The fact that the work isn't actually stolen is the keystone in how you can take the copyright case to trial. It's pretty hard to prove infringement if you have no record of the original work (ie it's been stolen).
