The supporters of a too-strict, repressive form of copyright often use words like “stolen” and “theft” to refer to copyright infringement. This is spin, but they would like you to take it for objective truth.
Under the US legal system, copyright infringement is not theft. Laws about theft are not applicable to copyright infringement. The supporters of repressive copyright are making an appeal to authority—and misrepresenting what authority says.
To refute them, you can point to this real case which shows what can properly be described as “copyright theft.”
Unauthorized copying is forbidden by copyright law in many circumstances (not all!), but being forbidden doesn't make it wrong. In general, laws don't define right and wrong. Laws, at their best, attempt to implement justice. If the laws (the implementation) don't fit our ideas of right and wrong (the spec), the laws are what should change.
A US judge, presiding over a trial for copyright infringement, recognized that “piracy” and “theft” are smear-words.
Yes, it might be a copyright infringement in some jurisdictions or license violation or may be even completely legal. I see nothing inherently bad about it. If you blindly follow every law, sure, don't do it. Some people can cross the law in some cases.
Actually I don't think making a copy of some stream of bits for my own use is immoral regardless of who's making the software or whether it's some indie studio or a megacorp.
But trying to defend Apple from piracy is just laughable.
So it is only wrong if we steal from indies trying to sell their products?