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.
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.
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.
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.
Look at it this way: does anyone get hurt if 50 cent donut is being sought for $1? There's no Napster of donut business.
Even the worst behavior is moral, ethical, and legal given certain frameworks.