Why is it okay to break the rules in the tech world but if you do it in the NYC subway, it's cheating.
Entrepreneurship is all about breaking the rules, making your own way and making things happen.
The guy probably didn't have a lot set up for him in life, so instead of feeling sorry for himself, he put on his shoes, grabbed his box of candy and made it happen.
Just because he's exercising his entrepreneurial spirit by doing something that's not as sexy as programming the next facebook/twitter/social "disruption" doesn't mean his attitude shouldn't be applauded.
He isn't breaking convention, he's just breaking the law. That law exists for a good reason - because being stuck in a confined space with a bunch of salesmen is intolerable.
Does your tech startup break the law? If so, please call your local precinct and wait for the police to arrive.
How many startups are currently facing legal action?
Do you really want to know the answer to this question? Tons of startups are breaking the law either intentionally or purposely trying to disrupt it. I think we've established long ago that something being "legal" or "illegal" doesn't necessarily mean it's "right" or "wrong."
Tons of startups are breaking the law? I find that highly unlikely, mostly due to the fact I spend at least an hour a week talking to my attorneys about EVERYTHING we do and making sure it's all above board and legally covered.
While I can't speak for all the other startups out there, I can say without a doubt that mine hasn't broken any laws.
I can guarantee that you violate copyright law every day. Ever play music at work? Did you acquire the performance right/license for that? Ever fwd someone's email? Depending on content most email is copyright protected. Do you really think you haven't violated terms of service of any software/website you've used. I'd be surprised if you even have read them all.
Most those laws are enforced only against egregious offenders. Dude offering me a candy bar so I don't have to stop by corner store is not egregious.
I doubt that it's possible for you or your attorneys to understand every single law that applies to your situation, so you are almost certainly breaking some law or regulation somewhere. The difference between you and this guy is that he probably knows that he's breaking the law, but you don't.
I'd estimate that about 1/8 to 1/4 of the purpose of the laws he's breaking is to protect commuters from harassment and the remainder is to protect the profits of businesses like the kiosks that sell candy, drinks, and newspapers on some of the platforms. Basically, I find those laws to be more of a bug than a feature.
I disagree. Based upon other commenters' experience with this exact fellow, he often turns abusive to people who don't want to buy what he's offering.
When it comes to public transit, strict limitations are really nice for the masses. Riding trains in Japan, where nobody chats on their cellphone next to you, buskers don't assault your ears, and vendors are limited, efficient, and polite, is a wonderful thing.
And, Indiana also requires licensure for money transmission.
IC 28-8-4-20 (a) A person may not engage in the business of money transmission without a license required by this chapter.
Therefore, Paypal is illegal in Indiana. But the only reason why I think they haven't been 'busted' is because nobody has complained yet to the appropriate Indiana authorities.
edit: I've been heavily criticised by OstiaAntica for this comment for being "anti-hacker". But I'm simply stating facts, and an opinion as why I think why. http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3088836
More likely, Indiana doesn't have any legal jurisdiction over Paypal. Just because something is a law in one place doesn't mean it's a law in another place, even if you have customers that are covered by the law.
> I can say without a doubt that mine hasn't broken any laws.
I hope that's merely your own misinformed conclusion and not what your attorneys actually told you. Because if they did guarantee this, you should probably look into getting new ones.
Assuming you're in the US, your congress already invented* laws it's illegal to know whether they affect you or whether you are guilty of them.
Of course those are coming for terrorists, so you don't need to speak out/worry because you're not a terrorist.
So while it's very likely that your company might not be breaking any laws, if your attorneys guarantee it, they're either lying/ignorant or breaking the law themselves.
OK so how's this relevant to the guy selling candy? The point is, it doesn't matter whether it's legal for him to sell these candies, the big deal is whether it's right for him to do so.
These attorneys you're hiring, are not for guiding you on the Right Path of being a "good" company, you hired them to protect you from the Beast of the Law.
*blatantly copied the idea from Kafka, who had prior art, the thieving bastards
I don't know about "breaking the law intentionally" but here are some examples of things startups have done that other people have thought were illegal. In some of the cases people have thought that so strongly that they've filed lawsuits.
Somewhat bullshit legal action, though. All they need to do is move their company out of San Francisco and then the City can't do anything about it. Cars for people in California can arranged from anywhere in the world with phone lines and intarwebs, and I doubt the City of San Francisco has much jurisdiction over people in, say, Russia.
Almost all startups, small companies, and even large companies that I've worked at have had some level of software piracy in their organization. Of course, I could just be unlucky in where I've worked, but it's always been rationalized away in some capacity ("once we start making money, we'll buy legitimate licenses").
Through 2009 Zynga made money from lead generation advertising schemes, whereby game participants would earn game points by signing up for featured credit cards or video-rental services. These were criticized as being less cost-effective than simply buying game points, and in some cases, being outright scams that would download unwanted software or unwittingly sign up for a recurring subscription.[38] One ad signed up players for subscriptions to expensive and unwanted text-messaging services.[39]
On October 31, 2009, Michael Arrington of TechCrunch said that Zynga intentionally worked with scam advertisers, and that lead generation made up a third of Zynga's revenue.[64] Arrington also alleged that Facebook was complicit in this.[65] On November 2, 2009, CEO Mark Pincus announced a reform in its offers: Tatto Media, a major offer provider that enrolled users into recurring cell phone subscriptions, would be banned, all mobile offers would be removed, and offer providers would be required to pre-screen offers.[66]
Arrington continued to question Pincus' role in the scams, republishing a video of a speech by Pincus.[67] In the speech, Pincus said:
"So I funded [Zynga] myself but I did every horrible thing in the book to, just to get revenues right away. I mean we gave our users poker chips if they downloaded this Zwinky toolbar which was like, I don't know, I downloaded it once and couldn’t get rid of it. laughs We did anything possible just to just get revenues so that we could grow and be a real business." —Mark Pincus, Speech from Startup@Berkeley
In response, Pincus noted that after offering the Zwinky toolbar, his team of ten decided to remove it since it was a "painful experience".[68]
Several days after the Techcrunch story, Zynga's most recent Facebook game FishVille, was temporarily taken offline by Facebook on claim of advertising violations. According to Zynga, Fishville had 875,000 users within two days of launch. A release from Facebook on its reasons for taking the game offline read that "FishVille will remain suspended until Facebook is satisfied that Zynga demonstrates compliance with Facebook restrictions – as well as Zynga’s own restrictions – on the ads it offers users."[69] FishVille was later un-suspended at midnight November 9–10.[70]
Several suits were filed against Zynga for promoting such offers,[71][72] including the class-action lawsuit Swift v. Zynga in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California for violation of the Unfair competition law and the Consumers Legal Remedies Act, after the lead plaintiff's credit card was billed more than $200 for offers she completed to receive YoVille currency.[73][74][75]
Pincus later said that he had been too eager to increase company revenues through advertising, and that operating in reactive mode by taking down ads only after receiving complaints had not worked. The company removed all ads for a time, relying only on direct purchase of game currency, then began reintroducing third party ads only after they had been screened.[38]
You are debating against rocks. The reason I say this is because once people decide some one is wrong. They are wrong for life. Nothing you write here will convince people that this peddler is right in doing what he is doing.
Being right is not always synonymous with legal.
Society is so unfair, when some uses unfair means to game the system and make lots money, he is termed 'intelligent'. Because big money is glamorous. Here we are a guy at the subway making same kind of average money your average developer might make, now suddenly hell breaks loose. 'How dare he?', I mean the reactions are basically 'How dare this guy? without any college education without learning and reading? make the same average amount of money as I do?' So obviously they end up with 'All this is illegal so it doesn't matter'.
Go check your life, you will find you are doing N number of things every day which might not be complying 100% with the law. Yet you can do it without harming any one.
The problem here and reason with many problem here is clear. No body likes the idea that a poor un educated guy is making the same money as they are. Doing less intellectual work. And yet here they are, after all those high aspirations and that intellectual work still the same as a subway peddler. So what really is the difference between them and a candy peddler in the subway.
Its this thing that is really giving all the invisible pain. Not the illegality of the selling candy in the subway.
If only the number were not $50,000 and way lesser than that, you would see a totally different thread.
Some time back people here were angry with a VC for a making a comment on the 'Google Chef' who got rich in an IPO. The same situation here.
Subway candy peddler is to these hackers what the 'Google Chef' was to a VC.
If your startup develops, sells or uses software, it is undoubtedly breaching someone's patents. Cardinal Richelieu needed six lines to hang a man; A good patent troll will hang a company in five lines of code.
>Entrepreneurship is all about breaking the rules, making your own way and making things happen.
Braking the rules is ok, braking the laws is not. So if I understand, you would consider the people, that are in the drug business, as entrepreneurs? Illegal activities are highly profitable, precisely because most people, will not participate in them, and this distorts the market.
Have you been on the subway when a peddler, beggar, dance troupe comes through with a loud spiel?
It's more like the subway version of spam.
Clearly lots of people are demanding spam, right?
He's providing a service that a few people* are demanding, and most people find annoying.
Plus evading sales tax, creating litter, reducing rent from the legit concessionnaire, etc. If that's OK, why stop there, why shouldn't I set up a candy stand in the movie theater?
*the ones who take up one seat for each butt-cheek
I've lived in New York, and it's just a fact of life on the subway, kind of like the way that it stinks on hot summer days. I'd rather that the police and the court system spend their resources on real crimes because I can always ignore these guys and the panhandlers while I read my book in peace.
And that is why it's tolerated to a certain threshold. Thankfully (for us and him) we're still below the threshold. But if more people start selling candy on the subway you can bet you'd be happy they did something about it. And this dude would be making significantly less money.
Having commuted on the subway at one point in my life, yes. That has happened to me hundreds of times. Usually I ignored them, other times I wanted some candy and purchased it.
well, as Emerson said, good men must not obey laws too well (probably talking about slavery). In this case, I think there are valid reasons for the law. Just because something is a fact of life doesn't mean it's desirable.
Agree with that. I was living there a while ago and they are more than annoying. The statement if you don't spend a dollar with me you either don't have it or are a hater already demonstrates his mindset - i.e. that people are obliged to buy his crap and that he takes it personal if they don't.
Nop, the subway version of spam is someone selling you Viagra even if you are a 10 year old girl; someone selling you fake lottery tickets and a guy from Nigeria that needs your credit card information in order to give you 10 millions bucks.
Just because the market is distorted doesn't mean they aren't entrepreneurs. We all know some laws are written/influenced by industry to protect industry. Maybe your parents told you never to break the law but, laws are written by men. They are fallible and sometimes people need to push the limits or break laws to make things change.
so much downvote hate these days. Quoted from the article itself: "He started selling candy in order to get out of the "hood," he says." Growing in the hood, with that kind of entrepreneurial spirit, I give him mad moral props for resorting to selling candy on the subway instead of drugs on the street.
For any of you entrepreneurial types out there, I challenge you to read 50 Cent's book "From Pieces to Weight", and tell me that if you were born in the hood, and had the same aspiring drive, you wouldn't resort to selling drugs.
I don't think it's bad to break the rules in either case. He's just not an entrepreneur, and this article proposes nothing truly interesting. He's selling shit on the subway. He didn't come up with a new and interesting way to sell shit. He's just selling shit. Panhandling. The only reason he can make a profit is because it's illegal and people are nice. He's taking advantage of both. Is it better than selling crack? Without the slightest doubt. But thats a terrible metric with which to judge your surroundings.
"Entrepreneur - a person who organizes and manages any enterprise, especially a business, usually with considerable initiative and risk"
He is the very definition of an entrepreneur. Most of the stuff you see selling in the streets of NYC is not "legal" because of not having the proper permits or any number of bureaucratic issues but you damn sure are not going to tell me these people are not entrepreneurs.
a person who organizes and manages any enterprise (He is not managing or organizing anything.)
especially a business (It is a business)
usually with considerable initiative and risk" (He went to the store, bought some candy, sold it. No risk, limited initiative, certainly not considerable imitative.)
The world would be a better place without a guy selling candy on a subway.
I disagree with this criticism. The very act of going to the store and buying candy in the hopes that it will bring in more cash is risk. He's risking money that he could otherwise spend on a new television, a 401(k), or M&Ms for the kids. That he planned a route for selling and segmented the population and carries different products to meet demand is the core of what managing an enterprise is.
This is to make no comment on whether what he is doing is good or even legal; but clearly there is 55k worth of demand for a service that he is providing so it is difficult for me to accept that the world would be a better place without this particular gentleman selling candy on a subway.
Enterprise - 1. "A project or undertaking, typically one that is difficult or requires effort."
2. "Initiative and resourcefulness."
He at least fits one of the requirements for the word enterprise.
As someone said previously in this thread, most of the people on this site have no idea what it means to actually "sell" something. Anytime you put your own money on the line to gain a profit you are taking a risk.
"Limited initiative"? Do you have any idea what it takes to go out in public and get rejected 90% of the time to make that one sale? His initiative is definitely not limited.
Do you know why Jason Fried's article http://www.inc.com/magazine/20110301/making-money-small-busi... in Inc was so on point? It was because selling is a skill and you really do have to practice to be good at it. I would say for most people its harder to learn how to sell than it is to learn how to become a programmer. Humans have more variables.
Why would the world be a better place without a guy selling candy on the subway? I can see where it could be a problem if the subway became overwhelmed with these guys but that's not the case. I ride the subway all of the time and you know what, I ignore these guys just like most New Yorkers do. Are the guys selling water bottles on the sidewalk during a hot day a nuisance as well?
The world would also be a better place without a lot of social-media crap startups with "sell more ads" business models using other people's money to bid up the price of talent and office space. Nonetheless, the people starting those companies are entrepreneurs and so is this guy. That's a lean startup, right there. ;)
People are buying aren't they? And I reject the suggestion that he is somehow pressuring people into buying, if you've ever been on a subway that is rather implausible.
Some people are deathly afraid of people talking to them in public, especially if they are from a different social class.
I've had people try to sell me candy on the L before. I said, "no thanks" and that was that. I imagine this is the end result of 99.99999% of interactions between people on public transportation. (Someone stole my shoes once after he asked to read my newspaper and I gave it to him. That's the 0.000001% case :)
You'd be amazed at the number of "uninteresting" entrepreneurs out there. Just because he's not in SV and his latest funding round wasn't featured in TechCrunch doesn't mean he's any less entrepreneur than any other business owner.
Besides, doing something because other people find it interesting is a terrible way to make life choices.
We're debating the relative importance of connotations of entrepreneurship; there's, say, a discrete (maybe multivariate) probability distribution of connotations, dictionary definitions are supposed to capture its peaks, and the debate is over where the "true" peaks are. I doubt most people would call the subway vendor a Steve Jobsian entrepreneur. But if he hired others to sell for him, took out loans to increase his inventory, and attached Sodoku puzzles and small pencils to his candy to give bored passengers something to do, more people would likely agree he can be called an entrepreneur. Nevertheless, I believe a high bar for innovation is not an essential component of entrepreneurship -- and the more interesting entrepreneurs are not necessarily more innovative. So the subway vendor's living between the cracks, he's breaking the law. Maybe that makes him more interesting! What types of people tend to strike up conversations with him? How often do policemen confront him? Which foods are more popular after a Yankees game? Interesting entrepreneurs may be engaged in very ordinary activities that afford them unique perspectives.
Incidentally, I love the NY subway for all its various distractions -- the breakdancers, the flashmobbers, and yes, even the panhandlers, because it's always interesting to observe how passengers react to them.
have you ever sold anything? you have to almost beg them, one on one. you have to be bold and walk down an aisle of people who give you the evil eye, and still make your pitch. before you take some high horse and put this man down, walk in his shoes.
Entrepreneurship is all about breaking the rules, making your own way and making things happen.
The guy probably didn't have a lot set up for him in life, so instead of feeling sorry for himself, he put on his shoes, grabbed his box of candy and made it happen.
Just because he's exercising his entrepreneurial spirit by doing something that's not as sexy as programming the next facebook/twitter/social "disruption" doesn't mean his attitude shouldn't be applauded.
Give the guy some credit.