But an equally valid interpretation of what's going on is:
Cool, free cupcakes! They want you to pay for birthday cakes and pre-order wedding cakes, but they'll give you any cupcake you ask for if they've got one available!
Do the IRC transcripts sound like he thought that this information should have been shared by the server? Your interpretation would have weev thinking that AT&T intended to make this information public, that having it public was fine, and there was no complexity in what he did to get it.
You're right - weev was being a dick, and he knew he ws at the time.
BUT…
I personally think AT&T should also be held to account for their part in what happened. They put all that data up on the public internet, with no authentication required to get it. I think they're at least as culpable here as weev is. (and I don't think _either_ of them should get off scott free - they both played fast and loose with other people's data.)
1) Generally they do things that are harder to prove illegal, harder to show were doing something they knew was wrong and don't send messages in IRC channels 'joking' about shorting stock when releasing bad news. In essence, they are smarter about it.
2) Some are.
3) Not everyone involved in investment is doing something immoral.
I know the US has decided to start prosecuting thoughtcrimes, such as jokes on FB, but that's actually unconstitutional. Accessing a server is not a crime, the user agent is not meant for authorization, and what he did was immoral, not illegal. The only difference between what weev and Aaron Swartz did is the type of content downloaded and the quality of the person downloading.
You're arguing to put this douchebag in prison, but not for an actual crime. Remember that the next time they use the CFAA to crucify someone who doesn't deserve it.
Possibly, it depends on intent. Add in:
Then you clearly knew what you were doing and therefore did something wrong.