The benefit to AOL is that they got a ton of good press for supporting young hackers. This is the first I've heard of the Imagine K 12 incubator, and I'm glad somebody's tackling this. AOL was smart to laugh it off in the press; this is the first positive thought I've had about them this decade.

The only variable cost is the food he ate which was probably negligible all things considered.

I'm not saying these are large costs, but the degree of harm isn't an excuse.

I suspect the AOL PR people are throwing a party that somebody managed to use "young" or "entrepreneur" in the same article with the word "AOL".

Also, degree of harm is certainly relevant. E.g. "No harm, no foul."

I'm not saying it was morally flawless, by the way. It was definitely somewhere between scrappy and duplicitous. And it was probably criminal if AOL really cared. I'm just saying that they don't actually care.

As a way to check, note that AOL opened these offices to other startups for free: http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/11_14/b42220432...

He broke a rule, probably a few laws, but no person was harmed or in any way negatively affected, it is certainly not 'blatantly unethical'

And perhaps he was just taking tips from RMS, who squatted his MIT office for years after officially quitting to work on GNU.

Comparing this to RMS isn't fair either. Everyone knew RMS was staying at the university -- his postal address was literally the desk he worked at.

Just as this guy stole quietly doesn't mean he didn't steal. He has raised $70k in funding and then has gone on to steal at least $2,000 from AOL. This isn't just unethical, it's illegal.

It's a kooky story nothing else.

However, I do agree that he saved over $2,000, since he saved the difference between what it would have cost him to purchase his food and perks at market price elsewhere and what they actually cost.

Spain (and many other countries) decided that they would rather be opt-out, so by default you've consented. This is actually a great example of the power of defaults to affect an outcome. Because of this out-out, the number of donations increases significantly.

I'd be more interested to know what happens to foreigners. I suspect that they aren't treated as consenting, but I don't know.

"Do no harm" isn't as clear cut as that. You have to do harm all the time as a doctor - the question is what is the lesser harm? Would you rather have a few broken ribs, or a heart that isn't beating. Either way, you're causing harm. Most people would rather you crack a few ribs though.

(BTW, that phrase actually isn't part of the Hippocratic Oath [1][2])

Here's a different example. Is burning a religious text (Bible, Koran, etc...) ethical? What if it is in private? Is anyone harmed? Many people would consider this an unethical act, even if no one was around to see it. And if no one would see it (and thus be offended), where is the harm?

Another example: Imagine Alice is in a wheelchair and is shopping. She accidentally drops her phone on the floor. At that moment, Eve walks by, notices Alice struggling, and yet does nothing. Eve continues walking on her way. Did Eve cause Alice harm? Alice was already in trouble, and Eve didn't do anything help. However, Eve didn't do anything to cause Alice's problems. So you can't really claim that Eve harmed Alice, even though many would question her inaction.

This is just to point out that the concepts of harm and ethics aren't necessarily linked. But that is really moot in this case, because no one can really claim that this kid caused AOL no harm. It may just be really small in monetary terms.

[1] http://www.kevinmd.com/blog/2011/06/harm-part-hippocratic-oa... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hippocratic_Oath

I know, but it is part of the standard medical code of ethics.

The original Hippocratic oath is a bit crap anyway, as it bans teaching any medical knowledge to ordinary people.

[edit] And apologies for being unnecessarily obtuse earlier, one of the precepts for ethics in medicine is the phrase "First, do no harm", which is what I was obliquely blathering on about. So rather than being very different questions, the concept of harm is firmly tied to many of our concepts of ethical behaviour.

It's lesson number #1 (don't use your employer's computer off-hours when working on your own projects) for people that try to build something outside their company's influence.

Hard to believe that this isn't also some kind of tort or trespass of which AOL could bring charges against him or stake a claim should he have some future gain from activities done at their expense (as nominal as that is).

I'm surprised they are treating it the way they are other than the obvious negative publicity that would ensue.

I mean if someone stayed for months in a department store overnight I don't think they would laugh it off or it might attract others to do the same.

Negative publicity can be a very strong motivator.

It feels like not a week goes by that 'the internet' learns about some yahoo suing some other guy for shaky reasons, and becoming infamous as a result.

Soon after that the yahoo has to change his name and move to Tijuana.

But yes, I think you're right. The negative backlash that AOL would get for attacking this kid vastly outweighs any sort of benefit they'd get. Now, this is all about spin and PR.

The response from the AOL spokesperson makes it seem like they are taking the incident in good humour:

"It was always our intention to facilitate entrepreneurialism in the Palo Alto office -- we just didn't expect it to work so well."

(I think the answer in this case is: I didn't take any action to receive the heat. Now the question is: why can't I legally decrypt satellite TV that's being blasted through my brain 24/7?)

Purchasing equipment that significantly enhances your ability to decrypt the signal (eg: a pre-programmed or altered smart card) is where you run into issues.

Additionally, unauthorized decryption of a copyrighted program or movie is a violation of the DMCA, 17 USC 1201(a)(1): "No person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title."

Or they could keep him tied up in court trying to argue his way out of it.

The only reason why he is going to make it out of this okay is the bad press that AOL would get for going after him.

If he used AOL computers (which it sounds like he didn't) they may or may not have grounds for a case but this is really stretching it.

And when his website opens up it plays "You've Got Mail" which proves it.

An employment contract usually stipulates that all work done while being paid by the employer is work for hire, unless otherwise stipulated. In this case, no such contract exists. Intellectual property is default owned by the creator unless explicitly transferred otherwise.

There's a claim to be made here on trespassing and possibly illegal use of resources, which can be recovered through small claims. But there's really very little case to be made that the IP created through the trespass and use of resources somehow transfer to AOL simply by reason of their ownership of the infrastructure.

California law protects individual side projects extremely well. I am not a lawyer, I could be wrong, but I believe these concerns are absolutely irrelevant in California. Relevant elsewhere, but not here.

    2870.  (a) Any provision in an employment agreement which provides that 
    an employee shall assign, or offer to assign, any of his or her rights
    in an invention to his or her employer shall not apply to an invention 
    that the employee developed entirely on his or her own time without 
    using the employer's equipment, supplies, facilities ...

I'm not a lawyer either, but that was always the advice I've been given.

Now this kid was just dumb. By using AOL resources without permission he now has all sorts of potential issues. Probably the only thing that kept him out of jail was the good will of AOL.

The definitions I've looked at do tend to say the entrepreneur takes on financial risk. He may not have done that.

Rather, it's about the optimistic spirit, the emotional strength, and ultimately the endurance to keep going even when it's so hard you don't want to get up out of bed.

If you figure this part of entrepreneurship out, as Eric has, you can probably build something amazing.

Entrepreneurship is about building a business, and people have demonstrated they can do that even if they're a pessimist, lack emotional strength, or have any kind of endurance.