Sadly, you are incorrect, and probably in the majority. Rules of ethics are not setup by privileged few; they are the cause of civilized humanity. Without them, we wouldn't have come this far. What he did to hustle the donuts, was fair and ethical. He earned his fair share. But what he did with churning out CDs, was not. We all can possibly see that. But of course, the trade born out of Napster must have been hard to resist. The part about resisting, is where ethics reside.
I'm not saying that his actions were ethical. They were not. I am saying that ethics are not absolute and that there is a point where they simply become irrelevant and can and do depart from "civilized humanity". Ethics and morals can in extreme cases become opposites. The civilization happens when we get them to align and keep them that way.
Allow me to use the Godwin accelerator to draw it all the way out:
"Ja, Herr Kommissar, I saw Frau ten Boom sneak half a dozen Jews into her attic on Tuesday" is the ethical answer. It is the only answer that satisfied the answer's requirements under the law of that time and place. But ethics had ceased to matter, civilization had already failed. Morality was all that was left.
There's a continuum, and being poor, black, and living in Compton in 2003 pushes the puck down the line a little towards uncivilized, into the space where morality starts to hold as much or more sway than ethics. We're just arguing about the amount.
Generalizations regarding the theoretical role of ethics in society are easy to offer. What is far more difficult is forging one's way in a world that systematically shifts the definition of ethics in a manner that privileges a few at one's own expense.
I sincerely hope that your pronouncements regarding the ethics of those less fortunate are met in vigor with your efforts to right their systematic disenfranchisement.
One can have a consistent set of ethics in which imaginary property does not exist.
For example, my personal opinion is that it is unethical to directly support companies working to put the Internet genie back in the bottle, especially for mere convenience.
One can have a consistent set of ethics in which imaginary property does not exist.
Not to put too fine a point on it, but an NBA player's livelihood depends quite a bit on the "imaginary property" that makes it illegal to rebroadcast games and sell counterfeit jerseys.
But the author wasn't the one who brought up ethics. A "hustle everything" set of ethics seems like it would include both breaking copyright law and utilizing it, depending on how it benefits oneself. Perhaps this is approaching a "null" ethics, but if those values are shared by his peer group then it seems like they should still qualify as ethics.
It's just a bit disingenuous to appeal to ethics and morality while really referencing laws, especially when we can see (historically) that laws are often wrong.
Perhaps the issue is that when saying anything is moral, ethical, or legal, we seem to be acting as if there is some universal system of morals, ethics, or laws that we are applying to.
Even the worst behavior is moral, ethical, and legal given certain frameworks.
