To arrive at this dubious conclusion, the author, intentionally or not, mixes up a number of concepts that really have to be kept separate, should one want to a

To arrive at this dubious conclusion, the author, intentionally or not, mixes up a number of concepts that really have to be kept separate, should one want to arrive at any sane conclusion: 1) Not every download of his book is automatically illegal. Many countries have laws in which uploading constitutes copyright infringement, which can fall under criminal code if done commercially or on large scale, but where downloading is entirely legal. Calling people "illegal downloaders" won't help his case. 2) Identifying copyright infringement with theft does not help his case either. Such rhetoric is often used to make an action seem worse than it would otherwise be, but is dishonest and usually does not lead to a fruitful discussion. 3) From "illegal download" he makes the jump to "dishonesty". This confuses the matter of legality with morality. Ideally the two would align perfectly, but in practice this is often not so. Copyright law seems to be a field where very many people have doubts on whether the current system is a good one. Once he has connected downloaders to "dishonesty", the whole thing essentially degrades into a bad rant. Making broad accusations of immorality, implying that people should think of themselves as polluted, and then claiming a moral high ground for himself, offering others a "fresh start" and "amnesty" won't accomplish any of the outcomes he seeks.