Check out the rest of the story and share your opinion after the break.
After a lengthy analysis that includes case studies from as far back as the 1960s (when Xerox started mass-producing copiers) and also touches on music piracy, at least one expert likened the author's actions to illegal music file sharing and said that this act of "documenting" a book may eventually lead to increased legal cases from book stores and publishers.
I'm torn on this one; on one hand, by consuming and saving the media for future use, the author owes something. On the other, what's the difference between this and flipping through the book at the store? Or photocopying a page at the library? Ultimately, he doesn't make a decision as to whether his actions were right or wrong. What do you think?