Not sure it's that simple, which is why I would like to know how things are done these days.
For example, if books are being bought, scanned in and freely distributed, piratically, then I would consider that on the immoral side of illegal and some invocation of Law might be necessary.
If the book is being distributed solely electronically and being stolen, then the author should consider paper only for her next book and get better advisors.
There are undoubtedly other considerations to be accounted, but I don't know 'em. Others will.
General overview of my current thinking: The author should cut losses, feel flattered at the extent of the piracy and exercise appropriate caution in future publications. Piracy will be bound to occur, now as ever, but it can, perhaps, be minimised. But to suggest she'll never write again - well, I wonder if that isn't just a ploy. How can a writer stop writing? How can a painter stop painting? Or an actor stop acting, even if they revert to the amateur arena.
Secondly, those who rant and rail against the withdrawal of freebies should catch themselves on and stop committing crimes. But those who are upset with the author for never writing again have a point and perhaps polite urging ought to do the trick.
Thirdly, I'm not an expert, but since when were such things simple decisions? The author must consider her true fans and paying customers first, her true pirating fans second and the morons last. Like musicians, authors' works are relatively easy to circulate after paying only the cover price. A lot of books I've read, I've borrowed or bought in book sales. But I also bought a lot new - in an actual shop. One I bought as an electronic download and have never deliberately shared it with anyone - not including friends who use my computer.
Were it a simple right or wrong issue, you and I would never borrow a book again.
Again, this is just my current thinking on the matter and, as always, I'm open to (preferably polite
) persuasion.